text:
\section{Introduction}

Quantum interpretations (see e.g. \cite{ghirardi,genovese_interp} for short reviews
and \cite{genovese_exp} for a review of their experimental status)
are frameworks for thinking about conceptual questions that cannot be
answered by the standard quantum formalism. One of the interpretations is
Bohmian mechanics (BM) \cite{bohm,book-bohm,book-hol,book-durr},
which
is usually (but not always \cite{oriols})
presented as a theory the main point of which is to offer
a fundamental microscopic ontology - trajectories of elementary particles.
For many physicists, especially instrumentalists, such a point of departure may not look intuitive
and well motivated, the consequence of which is that BM is widely ignored or misunderstood
in a wider physics community. Besides, BM is best understood as an interpretation of non-relativistic QM,
while its generalization to relativistic quantum field theory (QFT) is still an unsolved problem.
Various approaches to the Bohmian interpretation of relativistic QFT have been proposed
(see e.g. \cite{book-hol,bell,durrcr2,struyve,nikQFTpilot,nikbook} and references therein),
but neither of those approaches seems completely satisfying.

In this paper we offer a new instrumentalist-friendly formulation
of BM in which the main objects of concern are macroscopic phenomena, especially readings
of the measuring instruments, while microscopic ontology only plays a secondary auxiliary role.
With such a reformulation it is much easier to understand intuitively why BM always makes
the same measurable predictions as standard quantum mechanics (QM), irrespectively of the details
of microscopic ontology. Furthermore, from the point of view that all currently
well established physical theories are merely effective theories
\cite{anderson,weinberg,effbook}
describing only the phenomena
at sufficiently large distances, it seems plausible to assume that relativistic quantum field theory (QFT)
must be replaced by a completely different theory at smaller distances.
By extending the ideas introduced in \cite{nikmin},
we use the analogy with condensed-matter physics
to suggest that this more fundamental theory could have a form of non-relativistic QM,
which offers a simple generic resolution of an apparent conflict between BM and relativistic QFT.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{SECphilosophy} we present some philosophical
preliminaries. In particular, we introduce and explain the concept of a perceptible --
a macroscopic phenomenon amenable to a direct human perception --
which is the central concept in our instrumental formulation of physics.
In Sec.~\ref{SEC2} we formulate QM in terms of perceptibles, emphasizing the origin of
an instrumental version of the Born rule.
In Sec.~\ref{SECBohm} we introduce Bohmian mechanics as a natural completion of the
formulation of QM in terms of perceptibles.
In Sec.~\ref{SEC5} we discuss how BM can naturally be made compatible with relativistic QFT
by arguing that relativistic QFT is not a fundamental theory.
Finally, in Sec.~\ref{SEC6} we present a brief summary of our results.

\section{Philosophical preliminaries}
\label{SECphilosophy}

\subsection{Four basic notions in philosophy of physics}

Let us start with definitions of four basic concepts in philosophy of physics
that we shall use in the rest of the paper.

{\it Ontology:}
Things which are supposed to be there irrespective of (human)
observations.

{\it Determinism:}
The property that the future is completely determined by the past.
Here ``determined'' can have two different meanings, namely (i) determined {\em in principle}
or (ii) determined {\em in practice}, e.g. by human-made computers with restricted computational power.
A prominent example is deterministic chaos, which is deterministic in principle but not in practice.
In the rest of the paper, unless explicitly stated otherwise, by ``determined'' we mean determined in principle.
If determinism in that sense is right, the fundamental laws of physics are not probabilistic.

{\it Instrumentalism:}
The stance that the main goal of physics is to predict and control
the macroscopic phenomena, especially the outcomes
of scientific instruments.
In that sense, most physicists are (at least partly) instrumentalists.

{\it Instrumental interpretation of QM:}
According to this interpretation, QM only prescribes probabilities of measurement outcomes.
Hence this interpretation is not deterministic in the practical sense.
However, it usually says nothing about
determinism in principle or about ontology, as long as it does not help
to predict the macroscopic phenomena.
For instance, it usually does not offer answers
to questions such as ``Does particle have a position before one measures it?''.

\subsection{The trouble with Bohmian mechanics}

Bohmian mechanics (BM) postulates that quantum particles are pointlike objects
with deterministic trajectories.
This postulate is usually motivated by the goal of prescribing a fundamental microscopic ontology.
Namely, according to BM, a particle has a position even if one does not measure it.
Contrary to a widespread misconception, determinism is {\em not} the main goal of BM.
The determinism of BM is only a byproduct.

Typical instrumentalists, however, do not care about ontology.
Instrumentalists often say that ontology is not physics, but metaphysics.
Hence instrumentalists usually do not find BM intuitive and well motivated.
The consequence is that BM is widely ignored or misunderstood in a wider physics community.

The main goal of this paper is to {\it reformulate} BM
such that it looks better motivated and more intuitive
to a wider physics community, especially instrumentalists.

\subsection{Three funny ``ble'' nouns in QM}

In the rest of the paper it will be crucial to understand the difference
between three words, the first of which is well known in QM,
the second of which is less known, and the third of which is completely new in QM.
Here we give brief explanations of their meaning.

{\it Observable:}
In QM it is a noun (while in normal English it is an adjective).
An observable is a hermitian operator in the Hilbert space.
It is related to a quantity that can be measured
in an actual experiment, but it is {\em not identical}
to a quantity that can be measured in an actual experiment.
An operator in the Hilbert space is only a mathematical tool that theorists use
to {\em describe} the nature,
no experimentalist has ever seen an operator in the nature itself.
As beautifully expressed by the instrumentalist Asher Peres \cite{peres},
``Quantum phenomena do not occur in a Hilbert space, they occur in a laboratory.''.

{\it Beable:}
That word was coined by John Bell \cite{bell}.
It means the same as ontology: stuff which is there irrespective of observation.
The concept of a beable is central to Bohmians, but not to instrumentalists.

With a goal to make BM more meaningful to instrumentalists,
we find useful to introduce one additional concept, which we call perceptible.

{\it Perceptible:}
In physics it is a noun (while in normal English it is an adjective).
It is a thing or phenomenon amenable to {\it direct} human perception.
Some examples of perceptibles are tables, chairs, the Moon, macroscopic instrument,
click in the detector, the macroscopic picture of an atom produced by electron microscope, etc.
Some examples of non-perceptibles are wave function, electron, photon, atom, etc.

\subsection{More on perceptibles and beables}
\label{SEC2.4}

Since perceptible is a new concept that will be essential for understanding the rest of the
paper, here we provide some additional explanations of that concept.
In addition, we explain how the concept of beable can be interpreted from an instrumental
point of view.

The distinction between perceptibles and non-perceptibles is similar to
the distinction between macroscopic and microscopic.
In particular, all microscopic entities are non-perceptibles.
However, a macroscopic entity does not necessarily need to be a perceptible.
For example, gravitational field and radio wave are macroscopic but not perceptibles.

Non-perceptibles are {\it theoretical constructs}
that help to explain and predict the properties of perceptibles.
Some examples are given in Table 1.
In general, {\it to make a measurable prediction means to predict a property of a perceptible.}

\begin{table}[t]
\label{table1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf perceptible} & {\bf explained by non-perceptible} \\
\hline \hline
click in the photon detector & photon \\
picture of atom produced by electron microscope & atom, electrons \\
falling apple & gravitational field \\
music from the radio & radio wave \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Examples of perceptibles and the corresponding non-perceptibles that explain the perceptibles.}
\end{table}

We said that a non-perceptible is a theoretical construct. However, when we say that
it is a theoretical construct, we do not say that it is not a beable.
In fact, a beable is a theoretical construct itself;
the claim that something is a beable really means that
it is a beable {\em in a given theory}.
For instance, point-like particles are beables in classical mechanics,
but not in classical field theory such as classical electrodynamics with continuous charge distributions.
Hence, by saying that something is a beable, in this paper we do not necessarily claim that it
exists in the reality.
A beable may exist according to a theory, but the theory does not need to be identical with the reality
(the map is not the territory, as the proverb says).
Nevertheless, to intuitively understand a given theory, it may be useful to {\em imagine} that
its beables exist in the reality,
because that sometimes helps to {\em think} about the theory.
Hence we adopt an instrumental interpretation of a beable,
according to which it is just a useful thinking tool.

We also emphasize that, like with macroscopic and microscopic, there is no strict border
between perceptible and non-perceptible.
For instance, is a one-cell microorganism macroscopic or microscopic?
There is no unambiguous answer to that question.
Similarly, is perception of a one-cell microorganism by optical microscope direct or indirect?
It must be direct to be called a perceptible, but there is no unambiguous border
between direct and indirect perception. A perception by a naked eye is clearly
direct, a perception by an electron microscope is clearly indirect,
but a perception by an optical microscope is somewhere in between.
Nevertheless, even though there is no strict border between micro and macro,
or between perceptibles and non-perceptibles, the concepts are useful.

By contrast, the property of being a beable is a binary property.
An object is either a beable or not, it
cannot be somewhere in between.
One object can be more macroscopic than another, but one object cannot be more
a beable than another.

\section{Quantum theory of perceptibles}
\label{SEC2}

\subsection{All perceptibles can be reduced to macroscopic positions}
\label{SEC2.1}

As we said, all perceptibles are macroscopic. This means that they are large in the position space.
Hence, when two perceptibles can be distinguished, it means that
they can be distinguished by macroscopic positions of something.

The simplest example is the measurement of spin.
The spin is an observable, but it is not a perceptible.
As discussed in many QM textbooks, spin can be measured by the Stern-Gerlach apparatus.
In this case, the perceptible is a big dark spot on the screen of the apparatus.

Similar can be said about other, usually more sophisticated instruments,
which are either digital or analog.
For analog instruments, the perceptible is a position of a macro pointer.
For digital instruments, the perceptibles are positions of the lines that make a digit on the screen.

How about a click in the detector?
The sound is determined by macroscopic oscillations of something,
e.g. of a membrane of the speaker.
This oscillation is nothing but a macroscopic position as a function of time.
Hence a click in the detector can also be reduced to macroscopic positions.

What about senses such as color, taste or smell?
They are created in the eye, tongue or nose respectively (and interpreted by brain),
by stimulation of a nerve. For the creation of a sense it is not so much important
{\em what} stimulates the nerve (what kind of light or chemical).
It is much more important {\em which} nerve is stimulated.
For instance, the electro-stimulation
of the sweet nerve creates the illusion of sweetness, without having any
sweet chemical. Since different nerves have different macroscopic positions,
it means that even senses such as color, taste and smell
can be reduced to macroscopic positions.

\subsection{The origin of Born rule in QM}
\label{SECbornrule}

The Born rule is usually presented as a {\em postulate} that,
in any Hilbert-state basis $\{|k\rangle\}$, the probability is given by
\begin{equation}\label{born1}
 p_k=|\langle k|\psi\rangle|^2 .
\end{equation}
However, it is not really necessary to postulate it in all possible bases.
It is sufficient to postulate it only in the position basis,
because the instrumental form of the general Born rule (\ref{born1}) can be {\em derived}
from the Born rule in the position space.

To derive the instrumental form of the general Born rule (\ref{born1}), we start from the crucial insight that
what we need are probabilities of perceptibles, such as the probability that a detector will click.
The results of Sec.~\ref{SEC2.1} then imply that probabilities of perceptibles must be
computed in the position space.
However, since there is no strict border between
perceptible and non-perceptible,
it seems natural to compute {\em all} probabilities in the position space.
In this way, the position basis becomes a preferred basis not only for macroscopic degrees of freedom,
but even for the microscopic ones.

To understand it in more detail, suppose that we measure a microscopic observable $\hat{K}$ with eigenstates $|k\rangle$.
For simplicity, we assume that $\hat{K}$ has a non-degenerate spectrum (in Sec.~\ref{SECgenmeas}
we shall discuss more general measurements). The microscopic observable can be written in the spectral form
\begin{equation}
\label{K}
 \hat{K} = \sum_k k |k\rangle\langle k| .
\end{equation}
To describe the measurement, we also need to describe
the macroscopic apparatus, that is the perceptible. The macroscopic apparatus can be described
by its microscopic quantum state $|A\rangle$.
If the initial state of the measured system is $|k\rangle$ and
if the initial microscopic state of the apparatus is $|A_0\rangle$,
then the interaction between the measured system and the apparatus induces a unitary transition
of the form
\begin{equation}\label{meas1}
 |k\rangle |A_0\rangle \rightarrow |k'\rangle |A_k\rangle .
\end{equation}
Here we allow that $|k'\rangle$ may be different from $|k\rangle$, which means that we consider
measurements slightly more general than projective measurements. (In Sec.~\ref{SECgenmeas}
we shall discuss even more general measurements.)
We require that different measurement outcomes are {\em macroscopically distinguishable},
for otherwise the interaction cannot be interpreted as a measurement.
Hence the apparatus wave functions have a negligible overlap in the multi-position space, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{nooverlap}
 A_{k_1}(\vec{x}) A_{k_2}(\vec{x}) \simeq 0 \;\;\;\; {\rm for} \;\;\;\;  k_1\neq k_2 .
\end{equation}
Here $A_k(\vec{x}) \equiv \langle \vec{x}|A_k \rangle$, where
\begin{equation}
\vec{x} \equiv  ({\bf x}_1,\ldots,{\bf x}_n) ,
\end{equation}
$n$ is the number of particles constituting the apparatus, and the wave functions are normalized as
\begin{equation}
\int d\vec{x} \, |A_{k}(\vec{x})|^2 =1 ,
\end{equation}
with $d\vec{x}\equiv  d^{3n}x$.

Similarly, if the initial state of the measured system is in a superposition
\begin{equation}\label{psi}
|\psi\rangle = \sum_k c_k |k\rangle ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{ck}
 c_k=\langle k|\psi\rangle ,
\end{equation}
then (\ref{meas1}) generalizes to
\begin{equation}\label{meas2}
 |\psi\rangle |A_0\rangle \rightarrow \sum_k c_k |k'\rangle |A_k\rangle .
\end{equation}
A more realistic analysis includes also the environment, so (\ref{meas2}) further
generalizes to
\begin{equation}\label{meas3}
 |\psi\rangle |A_0\rangle |E_0\rangle \rightarrow \sum_k c_k |k'\rangle |A_k\rangle |E_k\rangle \equiv |\Psi\rangle .
\end{equation}
Hence the state after the measurement can be written in the final form
\begin{equation}\label{meas4}
|\Psi\rangle = \sum_k c_k |A_k\rangle |R_k\rangle ,
\end{equation}
where the apparatus state $|A_k\rangle$ describes the perceptible and $|R_k\rangle = |k'\rangle|E_k\rangle$
describes all the rest. This state can be written in the multi-position representation as
\begin{equation}\label{meas4.1}
 \Psi(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\sum_k c_k A_k(\vec{x}) R_k(\vec{y}) ,
\end{equation}
where $\vec{y}$ are positions of all particles except those of the apparatus.
Hence the Born rule in the multi-position space
\begin{equation}\label{born2}
\rho(\vec{x},\vec{y}) =|\Psi(\vec{x},\vec{y})|^2
\end{equation}
gives the probability density
\begin{equation}\label{born2.1}
\rho(\vec{x},\vec{y}) \simeq \sum_k |c_k|^2 |A_k(\vec{x})|^2 |R_k(\vec{y})|^2 ,
\end{equation}
where (\ref{nooverlap}) has been used. Therefore the probability density for positions of
the apparatus particles is given by the marginal probability density
\begin{equation}
\label{rhox}
\rho^{\rm (appar)}(\vec{x})=\int d\vec{y} \, \rho(\vec{x},\vec{y})
\simeq \sum_k |c_k|^2 |A_k(\vec{x})|^2 .
\end{equation}
Now let the support of $A_{k}(\vec{x})$ be the region of $\vec{x}$-space in which $A_{k}(\vec{x})$
is not negligible. Then the probability to find the apparatus particles in the support of $A_{k}(\vec{x})$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{pk}
 p_{k}^{\rm (appar)}=\int_{\rm supp \;\; A_{k}} d\vec{x} \,  \rho^{\rm (appar)}(\vec{x}) \simeq |c_k|^2 .
\end{equation}
Recalling (\ref{ck}), we see that (\ref{pk})
coincides with the Born rule (\ref{born1}) in arbitrary $k$-space, which finishes the derivation of
the general Born rule (\ref{born1}) from the Born rule (\ref{born2}) in the position space.

\subsection{Generalized measurements}
\label{SECgenmeas}

To emphasize the importance of Eq.~(\ref{meas4}), we refer to it as
the {\em master formula} of quantum measurement
and write it in a slightly more general form
\begin{equation}\label{master}
|\Psi\rangle = \sum_l \tilde{c}_l |A_l\rangle |R_l\rangle .
\end{equation}
In the master formula (\ref{master})
(not to be confused with the master {\em equation} in the theory of quantum decoherence \cite{schloss}),
$|A_l\rangle$ denotes the microscopic state of the perceptible, $|R_l\rangle$ represents
the microscopic state of all the rest, and $\tilde{c}_l$ are some coefficients obeying $\sum_l|\tilde{c}_l|^2=1$.
Eq.~(\ref{master}) is a generalization of (\ref{meas4}) in the sense that
the coefficients $\tilde{c}_l$ do not need to be equal to $c_k$ given by (\ref{ck}).
In general, the coefficients $\tilde{c}_l$ depend not only on the initial state (\ref{psi})
of the measured system, but also on details of its interaction
with the apparatus and the environment.

In the derivation of the master formula (\ref{meas4})
in Sec.~\ref{SECbornrule}, the label $k$ had a double meaning:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item
Eigenstates $|k\rangle$ of an observable $\hat{K}$ with a non-degenerate spectrum.
\item
Label of distinct perceptibles.
\end{enumerate}

For more general measurements, however, the label $l$ in (\ref{master})
does not need to have the meaning (i).
Examples where the meaning (i) cannot be applied include measurement of an observable
with a degenerate spectrum, measurement of the photon position, measurement of time, etc.
Nevertheless, all such generalized (not necessarily projective) measurements can be described by the POVM formalism
\cite{peres,nielsen-chuang,muynck,audretsch,schumacher,laloe,witten}
and the Neumark's theorem \cite{peres} provides that any POVM measurement can be reduced
to a projective measurement in some larger Hilbert space.
Physically, this means that the master formula (\ref{master}) with the meaning of $l$ given by (ii)
is valid for {\em any} measurement with clearly distinguishable outcomes.
Identifying the larger Hilbert space with the product ${\cal H}_A\otimes{\cal H}_R$
of the apparatus Hilbert space ${\cal H}_A$ and the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_R$ of the rest,
the relevant projectors in the larger Hilbert space are $|A_l\rangle\langle A_l| \otimes 1$.
So even if there is no microscopic observable (\ref{K}), one can always interpret the measurement
as a projective measurement of the apparatus observable
\begin{equation}
\label{K2}
 \hat{L}^{\rm (appar)} = \sum_l l  |A_l\rangle\langle A_l|.
\end{equation}
Hence, by repeating the analysis described by Eqs.~(\ref{meas4.1})-(\ref{pk}), we conclude that
the instrumental form of the Born rule
\begin{equation}
 p_{l}^{\rm (appar)}\simeq |\tilde{c}_l|^2
\end{equation}
is always true, whenever the probability density in the multi-position space
is given by $\rho(\vec{x},\vec{y};t) =|\Psi(\vec{x},\vec{y},t)|^2$.

\section{Bohmian mechanics}
\label{SECBohm}

\subsection{Motivation for BM}

In contrast with more traditional approaches to BM,
in our instrumental approach to BM we do {\em not} start from postulating particle trajectories.
Instead, our main postulate is this:
\newtheorem{coms}{Axiom}
\begin{coms}
\label{a1}
All perceptibles are beables.
\end{coms}
Loosely speaking, it says that the Moon is there even if nobody observes it.
The opposite would be that the Moon is only in our mind,
which few physicists would find appealing.
Hence the Axiom \ref{a1} is motivated by common sense,
but we stress that it is impossible to prove or disprove this axiom by the scientific method.
This axiom is nothing but a useful thinking tool. It is useful because it is mentally
hard (though not impossible \cite{niksolip}) to think the opposite in a logically consistent manner.
As we shall see, most of the motivation for BM arises from this common sense axiom.

Before discussing how that leads to BM, let us note that the famous Bell theorem \cite{bell}
can be expressed in the language of perceptibles as follows:
{\it If perceptibles described by QM are beables, then those perceptibles obey non-local laws.}
That is, if the correlated, yet spatially separated, quantum measurement outcomes
are there even before a single local observer detects the correlation,
then the measurement outcomes are governed by non-local laws \cite{mermin,tumulka}.
Note that the Bell theorem expressed in that form avoids the notion of ``hidden variables''
and does not depend on the assumption of determinism.

As we explained, a perceptible is determined by the microscopic positions $\vec{x}=({\bf x}_1,\ldots,{\bf x}_n)$
of the apparatus particles. In principle one might conceive that the microscopic positions are not beables,
even though the macroscopic position of the perceptible is a beable.
However, as we explained in Sec.~\ref{SEC2.4}, something can be less macroscopic than something else,
but it cannot be less a beable than something else. Hence, to conceive that only macroscopic positions are beables,
one would need to introduce a strict border between micro and macro positions,
which would look {\em ad hoc} and conceptually complicated.
Therefore, to avoid such complications, we propose that {\em all} $\vec{x}$ are beables, which is
the simplest possibility compatible with the Axiom \ref{a1}.
Similarly, as there is no strict border between perceptibles and non-perceptibles,
we propose that positions $\vec{y}$ of all the rest are beables too.

In Sec.~\ref{SEC2} we have derived the quantum mechanical Born rule in arbitrary $k$-space
from the Born rule in the position space.
This means that {\em any} theory, for which the probability density in position space is
\begin{equation}
\rho(\vec{x},\vec{y};t) =|\Psi(\vec{x},\vec{y},t)|^2 ,
\end{equation}
has the same measurable predictions as QM.

This is valid even for generalized measurements discussed in Sec.~\ref{SECgenmeas}.
As an example, consider measurement of time.
It is well known that there is no time operator $\hat{K}=\hat{T}$ with eigenstates $|k\rangle=|t\rangle$
\cite{timeqm,nikmyths}.
Nevertheless it is not a problem for measurement of time, because in the master formula (\ref{master})
written as
\begin{equation}
\label{master2}
|\Psi\rangle = \sum_l \tilde{c}_l |C_l\rangle |R_l\rangle,
\end{equation}
the label $l$ just labels the distinct macroscopic positions of the macroscopic clock pointer
with microscopic clock states $|C_l\rangle$.

So far, in this section we have found motivation for two requirements. The first requirement is that
perceptibles are beables, which was motivated by common sense.
The second requirement is that $\rho(\vec{x},\vec{y};t) =|\Psi(\vec{x},\vec{y},t)|^2$, which was motivated by QM.
What kind of theory can satisfy both requirements?

A simple theory that satisfies both requirements is a theory in which
all positions $\vec{q}=(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ are {\em beables} and {\em random}.
This looks almost like standard QM, except that standard QM does not insist that $\vec{q}$ are beables.
However, such a theory in which the positions $\vec{q}$ are random
does {\em not explain} the Born rule for $\vec{q}$.
In this theory, the Born rule for $\vec{q}$ is still {\em postulated}.

Can we do better? Can we {\em explain} the Born rule for $\vec{q}$?
The requirement that $\vec{q}$ is a beable implies that it has a value $\vec{Q}(t)$ at each time $t$.
In principle $\vec{Q}(t)$ could be a stochastic (that is, non-deterministic) function of time $t$.
However, $\vec{Q}(t)$ must be compatible with $\rho(\vec{q};t) =|\Psi(\vec{q},t)|^2$,
and the Schr\"odinger equation implies that $|\Psi(\vec{q},t)|^2$ is a deterministic function of $t$.
This suggests (but not proves) that $\vec{Q}(t)$ could be deterministic too.

To summarize, the requirement that perceptibles are beables suggests that $\vec{Q}(t)$ exists,
while the requirement of compatibility with the Schr\"odinger equation suggests that $\vec{Q}(t)$ is deterministic.
This is the motivation for introducing BM.

\subsection{Construction of BM}
\label{SEC4.2}

How can a deterministic law for $\vec{Q}(t)$ be compatible
with the probability density $\rho(\vec{q};t) =|\Psi(\vec{q},t)|^2$?
The compatibility condition is that $\vec{Q}(t)$ is determined by a law of the form
\begin{equation}\label{BohmQ}
 \frac{d\vec{Q}(t)}{dt}=\vec{v}(\vec{Q}(t),t) ,
\end{equation}
where $\vec{v}(\vec{q},t)$ is a function that satisfies the continuity equation
\begin{equation}\label{cont}
 \frac{\partial|\Psi|^2}{\partial t}+\vec{\nabla}(|\Psi|^2\vec{v})=0 .
\end{equation}
Namely, if $\rho(\vec{q};t_0) =|\Psi(\vec{q},t_0)|^2$ for initial $t_0$,
then the continuity equation implies that $\rho(\vec{q};t) =|\Psi(\vec{q},t)|^2$ for all $t$.

In fact, the continuity equation is analogous \cite{book-hol,book-durr} to the Liouville equation
in classical statistical mechanics.
This means that the probability density $\rho(\vec{q};t) =|\Psi(\vec{q},t)|^2$
corresponds to a {\em quantum equilibrium}, which can be explained
even without assuming the initial condition $\rho(\vec{q};t_0) =|\Psi(\vec{q},t_0)|^2$.
Similarly to classical statistical mechanics \cite{tolman,ehrenfest},
there are two different approaches to the explanation of quantum equilibrium
from the continuity equation. One approach is based on a $H$-theorem \cite{valentini}
and the other approach is based on typicality \cite{durr_absunc}.
For a review of both approaches see \cite{norsen}.

So is there such $\vec{v}=({\bf v}_1,\ldots, {\bf v}_N)$,
with $N$ being the number of particles,
that satisfies the continuity equation (\ref{cont})?
In non-relativistic QM the answer is yes, because
it is well known that the Schr\"odinger equation itself
\begin{equation}\label{sch}
 \hat{H}\Psi=i\hbar\partial_t\Psi
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{sch2}
 \hat{H}=\sum_{a=1}^N \frac{\hat{\bf p}_a^2}{2m_a} +V(\vec{q})
\end{equation}
implies a continuity equation of the form (\ref{cont}) with
\begin{equation}\label{Bohmv}
 {\bf v}_a =  \frac{-i\hbar}{2m_a} \,
\frac{\Psi^* \!\stackrel{\leftrightarrow\;}{ \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}_a }\!  \Psi}
       {\Psi^*\Psi} =
\frac{ {\rm Re} (\Psi^*\hat{\bf v}_a \Psi)}{\Psi^*\Psi} ,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\bf v}_a=\hat{\bf p}_a/m_a$ is the velocity operator and
$\hat{\bf p}_a=-i\hbar \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}_a$ is the momentum operator.

The quantity $|\Psi|^2\equiv \Psi^*\Psi$ is the probability density for particles without spin.
Similarly, (\ref{Bohmv}) also describes particles without spin.
To generalize those expressions to particles with spin, all one has to do is to
make the replacement
\begin{equation}
\Psi^*\cdots\Psi\rightarrow \Psi^{\dagger}\cdots\Psi=\sum_{\alpha}\Psi_{\alpha}^*\cdots\Psi_{\alpha} ,
\end{equation}
where $\sum_{\alpha}$ represents the sum over all spin indices.

The results above show that BM works for non-relativistic QM.
But we stress that the law (\ref{BohmQ}) with (\ref{Bohmv}) is non-local when
the wave function is in the entangled state.
The velocity of any particle at time $t$ depends on the positions of all particles
at the same time $t$, no matter how far the other particles are.
We also stress that this non-local interaction is the only interaction between Bohmian point-like particles.
When the wave function is not entangled, then Bohmian point-like particles do not interact with each other at all.
In this sense, Bohmian particles have {\em only} non-local interactions.
However, one should distinguish this interaction between Bohmian point-like particles from the interaction
described by the Hamiltonian in the Schr\"odinger equation. The latter describes the evolution of the
wave function, which should be distinguished from the evolution of Bohmian particle positions.
Hence the fact that Bohmian particles have only non-local interactions is not in contradiction
with the possibility of having a Hamiltonian with local interactions.

\subsection{Robustness of long distance physics}
\label{SECrobust1}

In physics, there is a general rule of thumb that says that
{\em the laws of long distance physics
do not depend on details of small distance physics.}
There are many examples of that rule.
For instance, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics do not depend
on details of atomic physics. (One does not need to know much about
atomic physics to be an expert in fluid mechanics or thermodynamics.)
Similarly, atomic physics does not depend on details of nuclear physics.
Likewise, nuclear physics does not depend on details of quarks.
And finally quantum chromodynamics, the standard theory of quarks and gluons,
does not depend on details (or even validity) of string theory.

This intuitive rule can be formalized more generally by the Wilson renormalization theory
(see e.g. \cite{peskin}). According to the Wilson renormalization theory,
the long distance physics is obtained from more fundamental microscopic theory
by {\em integrating out} the small distance degrees of freedom.

This general rule helps to understand why BM has the same measurable
predictions as standard QM, which we discuss in more detail in the next
subsection.

\subsection{Robustness of measurable predictions by BM}

Similarly to the general rule in physics discussed in Sec.~\ref{SECrobust1},
the perceptibles in BM do not depend on details of particle trajectories.
This is seen from Eqs.~(\ref{rhox}) and (\ref{pk}), which say that probability
of a perceptible is obtained by {\em integrating out} over all microscopic positions
\begin{equation}
 p_{l}^{\rm (appar)}=\int_{\rm supp \;\; A_{l}} d\vec{x} \int d\vec{y} \, |\Psi(\vec{x},\vec{y})|^2 .
\end{equation}
Intuitively, it says that the precise particle positions are not very much important
to make measurable predictions. It is important that particles have {\em some} positions
(for otherwise it is not clear how can a perceptible exist), but it is much less important
what exactly those positions are.
That is why BM (with trajectories) makes the same measurable
predictions as standard QM (without trajectories).

It is extremely important not to overlook the general idea above that the precise particle positions
are not essential
(unless some special conditions are met, which we discuss at the end of this section).
For otherwise, one can easily make a {\em false} ``measurable prediction'' out of BM that seems to differ from
standard QM, when in reality there is no such measurable prediction.
The general recipe for making such a false ``measurable prediction'' out of BM is
to put too much emphasis on trajectories and ignore the perceptibles.
A lot of wrong ``disproofs of BM'' of that kind are published in the literature.

By a peer pressure of making new measurable predictions out of BM,
even distinguished Bohmians sometimes fall into this trap.
For instance, some try to make new measurable predictions of arrival times
by computing the arrival times of microscopic BM trajectories
(see e.g. \cite{leavens,durrtime}).
However, the microscopic trajectories are not perceptibles,
so the arrival times obtained from microscopic BM trajectories may be rather deceptive
from a measurable point of view.
To make a measurable prediction, one must first specify how exactly
the arrival time is {\em measured} \cite{steinberg}, which requires a formulation of the problem
in terms of a perceptible. When the problem is formulated in that way,
BM makes the same measurable predictions as standard QM, despite the fact
that there is no time operator in standard QM (recall also the discussion around Eq.~(\ref{master2})).

Another example of Bohmian computations that may look deceptive from a measurable
point of view are computations of the gravitational field $g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm (Bohm)}({\bf x},t)$ in Bohmian quantum
cosmology (see e.g. \cite{p-n-struyve} and references therein).
Even though the gravitational field is macroscopic, we recall from Sec.~\ref{SEC2.4}
that it is not a perceptible. Moreover, $g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm (Bohm)}({\bf x},t)$
is not a classical gravitational field, so analysis of a measurable effect
should involve some version of the quantum master formula (\ref{master}).
As long as computations in Bohmian quantum cosmology do not discuss consequences of (\ref{master}),
it is not clear what, if anything,
is the meaning of $g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm (Bohm)}({\bf x},t)$ from a phenomenological point of view.

BM is deterministic, so why cannot it make deterministic predictions
of measurement outcomes?
It is because of the quantum equilibrium \cite{valentini,durr_absunc},
which is most easily understood through the analogy with thermal equilibrium.
In the full thermal equilibrium, macroscopic changes can only happen
due to rare statistical fluctuations. In principle,
those fluctuations are in classical statistical physics governed by deterministic laws.
Nevertheless, owing to a large number of particles,
those deterministic laws cannot be used to make deterministic predictions
{\em in practice}.
In practice, thermodynamics makes deterministic predictions of macroscopic changes
only when the full system is {\em not} in a thermal equilibrium.

In addition, we stress that one does not need to explain why a system is in the equilibrium,
for equilibrium is the most probable state.
It is rather the {\em absence} of equilibrium that needs an explanation.
For instance, it is still not clear why the Universe is not in a thermal equilibrium.
On the other hand, the fact that the Born rule is consistent with all existing experiments
is evidence that the Universe is in the quantum equilibrium.

Why cannot BM trajectories be observed? Or more precisely, why cannot
a single measurement reveal a Bohmian particle position
with a precision better than the spatial width of the wave function?
This is not only because Bohmian positions are not perceptibles;
after all atom positions are also not percetibles, yet electron microscope can be used
to observe atom positions.
The true reason why Bohmian positions cannot be observed
with a precision better than the spatial width of the wave function
is because there are no local interactions (in the sense explained in Sec.~\ref{SEC4.2})
between BM particles.
To make an analogy, trying to observe a Bohmian trajectory
is like trying to observe the Moon's trajectory by watching tides.
Classical gravity is a long range force, so the observation of effect on B
caused by A does not directly reveal the position of A.
That is why we cannot observe the Moon's trajectory by watching tides.

Finally let us note that, even though the quantum equilibrium is a natural hypothesis
consistent with observations, it is not a logical necessity. Deviations
from quantum equilibrium are in principle possible, in which case the precise Bohmian particle positions
may be important and Bohmian mechanics may lead to measurable predictions
that differ from standard QM, as proposed e.g. in
\cite{valentini-noeq,golshani}. The proposal in \cite{golshani} has been ruled out experimentally in \cite{brida}.

\section{Beyond relativistic QFT}
\label{SEC5}

\subsection{What particles is BM about?}
\label{SEC5.1}

So far we were talking about particle trajectories, but
we did not specify what kind of particles we are talking about.
Is it atoms? Or is it smaller particles such as protons and neutrons?
Or is it more fundamental particles like electrons, quarks, photons and Higgs?
Or perhaps quasiparticles (collective excitations), like phonons?
As we stressed several times, the predictions on perceptibles do not depend much on those details.
Yet the details are important for their own sake.

Take for example a phonon.
The phonon trajectory is certainly not a beable because we {\em know} that
one phonon is a collective motion of many atoms.
Photons and electrons, on the other hand, are usually viewed as
fundamental particles, rather than quasiparticles.
But do we actually {\em know} that photon or electron is not a collective excitation of
some more fundamental degrees of freedom?
We stress that we do {\em not know} that.

Let us explain.
Theories which serve as good approximations at longer distances,
but not at smaller distances, are called {\em effective theories} \cite{effbook}.
The theory of phonons is certainly an effective theory.
There is some theoretical evidence that the Standard Model of ``elementary particles''
is an effective theory too \cite{weinberg,effbook}.
One evidence is the fact that the Standard Model has a lot of parameters (masses, coupling constants and mixing angles)
which are extracted from experiments but cannot be explained by the Standard Model itself,
suggesting that there is an unknown more fundamental theory that should explain them.
Another evidence is the fact that the Standard Model is a continuous quantum field theory (QFT)
with ``ultraviolet'' short-distance divergences, the consequence of which is that it cannot be
formulated in a mathematically rigorous way, which suggests that there should be a more fundamental
theory that does not suffer from such mathematical problems.
Yet another evidence is the fact that the Standard Model does not contain quantum gravity,
which is a strong indication that the Standard Model is incomplete.
It is not known what the fundamental theory behind the Standard Model is,
but one viable possibility is that
the ``elementary particles'' like electrons, quarks, photons, etc.
are in fact collective excitations.
Collective excitations of what? Of some truly elementary particles.
What those truly elementary particles are?
We do not know, because we still do not have the theory of everything.
We can only say that this hypothetic truly elementary particles are for
photons (and other Standard Model ``elementary particles'') what the atoms are for phonons.

How is that relevant to BM? The point is that Bohmian particle trajectories can only be beables
for the truly elementary particles, whatever those truly elementary particles are.
(For an illustration of that idea see also Sec.~\ref{SECexample}.)
Hence it seems very likely that
{\em BM trajectories are {\bf not} beables for the Standard Model
``elementary particles'' like electrons, quarks, photons and Higgs.}

\subsection{Bypassing relativistic QFT}

In Sec.~\ref{SEC4.2}
we found an explicit construction of BM for non-relativistic QM.
But what about relativistic QFT?

The ``elementary particles'' such as electrons, photons etc.
are described by relativistic QFT.
But in Sec.~\ref{SEC5.1} we argued that we do not need BM trajectories for them.
The BM trajectories are only needed for truly elementary particles.
We do not know yet what the theory of those truly elementary particles is,
but in principle it is possible that the truly elementary particles
are not described by relativistic QFT.
In fact, there is a good heuristic argument for that.
For truly fundamental particles it makes sense to assume that they cannot be created and destroyed.
On the other hand, it is known that relativistic QM and QFT naturally lead to particle creation and destruction
(see e.g. \cite{BD1,BD2}).
Hence it seems reasonable to assume that the truly fundamental particles, if they exist,
are described by non-relativistic QM.
If so, then BM bypasses relativistic QFT.

This can also be interpreted as a generic {\em measurable prediction} of BM.
The simplest formulation of BM, described in Sec.~\ref{SEC4.2},
requires that the most fundamental
degrees are described by non-relativistic QM.
This means that the simplest version of BM predicts that at some very small distances
(not yet amenable to our current experimental technologies such as those in Large Hadron Collider at CERN)
we should find new particles the observable properties of which do not obey Lorentz invariance.
This generic prediction differs e.g. from generic predictions of string theory \cite{GSW}.

\subsection{How could it be that non-relativistic QM is fundamental
and that relativistic QFT is only an approximation?}

It is usually considered that relativistic QFT is fundamental,
while non-relativistic QM is only an approximation.
By contrast, we propose that the opposite is the case. How could that be?
The basic idea is presented in most textbooks on condensed-matter physics.

First, to avoid terminological confusion, let us say that by ``relativistic'' we mean
a property of any theory (fundamental or not) that it is invariant under Lorentz transformations with some
constant speed parameter $\tilde{c}$. Explicitly, for a boost in the $x$-direction,
those Lorentz transformations are
\begin{equation}\label{lorentz}
x'=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/\tilde{c}^2}}, \;\;\; y'=y, \;\;\; z'=z, \;\;\;
t'=\frac{t-vx/\tilde{c}^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/\tilde{c}^2}} .
\end{equation}
The usual notion of relativistic theory is a special case, in which the speed parameter
is fixed to be the speed of light $\tilde{c}=c$.

Now consider sound. Sound waves satisfy the wave equation
\begin{equation}
\label{sound}
 \frac{1}{c_s^2} \frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial t^2} -\nabla^2 \psi =0 .
\end{equation}
This equation is Lorentz invariant under Lorentz transformations
in which the speed parameter is the speed of sound $\tilde{c}=c_s$.
Eq.~(\ref{sound}) is a valid approximation only at distances much larger than interatomic distances,
so the Lorentz invariance is an approximation valid only at those large distances.
The sound wave is propagated through the medium made of atoms,
which means that the Lorentz invariant wave equation is derived from non-relativistic motion of atoms.
The medium can be thought of as the ``ether'' for sound waves.
If one observed {\em only} the sound and nothing else,
it would look as if there was no ``ether'' for sound and
the Lorentz invariance of (\ref{sound}) would look like a fundamental law.
In reality, we also observe phenomena other than sound,
which is how we know that the Lorentz invariance of (\ref{sound}) is not fundamental.

The classical wave equation (\ref{sound}) can be ``quantized'', which leads to a
quantum theory of sound (see e.g. \cite{simons}).
First quantization of $\psi$ leads to QM of a single phonon.
Second quantization of $\psi$ leads to QFT of phonons.
Those are standard tools in condensed-matter physics.
They are derived from non-relativistic QM of atoms, where each atom is thought of as an
object made of a pointlike nucleus surrounded by electrons.
In this way, the creation and destruction of relativistic phonons is derived
from a non-relativistic theory of a fixed number of atoms.

By analogy \cite{nikmin}, it is conceivable that all relativistic ``elementary particles'' of the Standard Model
(photons, electrons, etc, which are relativistic with $\tilde{c}=c$) can be derived, in a similar way, from some hypothetic
more fundamental non-relativistic particles.
If so, then the world looks ``fundamentally'' relativistic only because
we do not yet see those more fundamental degrees.

Such a theory can be thought of as a neo-Lorentzian ether theory.
(For other theories of that kind in modern literature see e.g. \cite{nielsen,jacobson,horava}.)
The 19th century Lorentzian ether theory \cite{ether}
was ruled out by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment,
which ruled out the possibility that the Earth
moves {\em through} the ether.
What we propose here is that the Earth (and everything else)
is {\em made of} ether.
No experiment so far ruled out that possibility, so such a neo-Lorentzian ether theory
is a viable possibility.

In the literature there are many explicit models in which various qualitative properties of
the Standard Model of ``elementary particles'' are derived from
condensed-matter systems. For explicit models of that kind we refer readers to the books
\cite{volovik,wen} and references therein.
A model that could reproduce {\em all} quantitative details of the Standard Model is still
not known, but the broadness and flexibility of the condensed-matter framework
is a reason for optimism. In that sense, the condensed-matter framework in a search for a
more fundamental theory is similar to string theory, as string theory is also a broad and flexible framework
within which a model that could reproduce all quantitative details of the Standard Model
has not yet been found \cite{string_phen}.

\subsection{Example: A Phonon and its Bohmian interpretation}
\label{SECexample}

Let us illustrate the general qualitative ideas above by an example.
Consider a crystal lattice made of $N$ atoms with positions
\begin{equation}
 \vec{q}=({\bf q}_1,\ldots, {\bf q}_N) .
\end{equation}
The wave function $\Psi(\vec{q},t)$ satisfies the non-relativistic Schr\"odinger equation
(\ref{sch})-(\ref{sch2}),
where $V(\vec{q})$ describes the inter-atomic interactions.
Let $\Psi_{\bf p}(\vec{q},t)$ be the solution corresponding to one acoustic phonon
with momentum ${\bf p}$.
Then the most general 1-phonon solution is
\begin{equation}
 \Psi(\vec{q},t)=\sum_{\bf p} c_{\bf p} \Psi_{\bf p}(\vec{q},t) .
\end{equation}
In the abstract Hilbert space this state can be written as
\begin{equation}
|\Psi(t)\rangle = \sum_{\bf p} c_{\bf p} |\Psi_{\bf p}(t)\rangle ,
\end{equation}
which can also be represented by a 1-quasiparticle wave function
\begin{equation}
 \psi({\bf x},t)=\sum_{\bf p} c_{\bf p} e^{-i[\omega({\bf p})t-{\bf p}\cdot{\bf x}] } .
\end{equation}
Here $\omega({\bf p})= c_s |{\bf p}|$ is the Lorentz invariant
dispersion relation for acoustic phonons and we use units $\hbar=1$.
The 1-quasiparticle wave function $\psi({\bf x},t)$ satisfies wave equation
\begin{equation}
 \frac{1}{c_s^2} \frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial t^2} -\nabla^2 \psi =0 .
\end{equation}

Now we want to understand how this system can be understood from a Bohmian point of view.
To illustrate the general idea that microscopic details of BM depend on what is
considered fundamental, we consider four different versions of Bohmian interpretation.

{\em Bohmian interpretation 1}:
The existence of the phonon wave function $\psi({\bf x},t)$ suggests
that one can introduce a phonon Bohmian trajectory ${\bf X}(t)$.
It makes sense if one imagines that phonon is a fundamental particle.
Few physicists would take such a picture seriously.

{\em Bohmian interpretation 2}:
Now consider a somewhat more serious version of BM.
This version denies the existence of the phonon trajectory ${\bf X}(t)$,
but the wave function $\Psi(\vec{q},t)$ of $N$ atoms suggests that atoms
have Bohmian trajectories ${\vec Q}(t)$.
It makes sense if one imagines that atoms are fundamental.
Within this interpretation one can identify three different wave-like objects:
\begin{itemize}
\item The 1-phonon wave function $\psi({\bf x},t)$, which is relativistic and not fundamental.
\item The multi-atom wave function $\Psi(\vec{q},t)$, which is non-relativistic and fundamental.
\item The collective motion of atoms ${\vec Q}(t)$, which is non-relativistic and fundamental.
\end{itemize}

{\em Bohmian interpretation 3}:
An even more serious version of BM denies the existence of atom trajectories ${\vec Q}(t)$,
because the atoms are not fundamental, but made of ``elementary particles'' such as quarks and electrons.
Hence this version of BM accepts the existence of quark and electron Bohmian trajectories
${\vec Q}_{\rm quarks\; \& \;electrons}(t)$.
It makes sense if one imagines that quarks and electrons are fundamental.
However, it requires a relativistic version of BM compatible with QFT, which is not easy
to construct (for an attempt see e.g. \cite{nikQFTpilot,nikbook}).

{\em Bohmian interpretation 4}:
This version of BM denies the existence of quark and electron trajectories
${\vec Q}_{\rm quarks\; \& \;electrons}(t)$, but accepts the
existence of as yet unknown {\em truly} fundamental particles with Bohmian trajectories
${\vec Q}_{\rm truly \; fundamental}(t)$.
The truly fundamental particles cannot be created and destroyed,
so they are described by non-relativistic QM.
This bypasses the hard problem of relativistic BM
in the Bohmian interpretation 3.
The Bohmian interpretation 4 is the version of BM that we actually propose in this paper.

\section{Summary}
\label{SEC6}

In this paper we introduced the notion of
perceptibles, which are macroscopic entities that we observe directly.
Since perceptibles are macroscopic, they are distinguished in the position space.
The non-perceptibles such as wave function, atom, photon, etc. are
theoretical constructs that explain the perceptibles.
Our main axiom for the perceptibles is that all perceptibles are beables.
Essentially, it means that the Moon is there even when we do not observe it.
However, there is no strict border between perceptibles and non-perceptibles,
which suggests that microscopic positions are beables too.
This is the motivation for introducing Bohmian mechanics (BM),
according to which particles have trajectories.

But {\em what} particles? BM only makes sense if the particle trajectories are
trajectories of the fundamental particles.
On the other hand, as discussed is Sec.~\ref{SEC5.1},
there are indications that the Standard Model particles might not be fundamental,
suggesting that BM should not be applied to them.
Moreover, the simplest version of BM makes a generic measurable prediction; it predicts
that the fundamental particles obey non-relativistic QM.
Analogy with phonons indicates that fundamental non-relativistic QM
may lead to non-fundamental relativistic QFT, which, in principle,
bypasses the problem of relativistic BM without knowing the details of those
hypothetic fundamental particles.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author is grateful to X. Oriols for discussions.
This work was supported by
the Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia,
by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund
- the Competitiveness and Cohesion Operational Programme (KK.01.1.1.06)
and by H2020 Twinning project No. 692194, ``RBI-T-WINNING''.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Q: How to get 2 same named .Net Dlls to work together? I have a certain DLL in my application which works fine by itself. However, the vendor released a newer version of the dll that I am attempting to incorporate using Visual Studio. The DLLs share the same filename, while using different namespaces, and the later one is not backwards compatible.
To get VS to even use the newer one I renamed the file which makes sense. However, every time I build the application it only wants to copy the newer dll to the application folder and basically ignores the older dll. I have tried 'copy local' and other settings with no luck. I could probably add the dll to the GAC and be done with it, but don't really want to.
How can I get VS to treat both as totally separate items?

A:
I have a certain DLL in my application which works fine by itself. However, the vendor released a newer version of the dll that I am attempting to incorporate using Visual Studio

Why don't you just remove the old DLL completely and change your code to make the new one work?  Why would you want to use both at the same time?

A: You can deploy the two DLLs to different subdirectories. You'll then need to set up rules in your app.config that tell .NET where to find each version.
An example based on the MSDN page for the <codeBase> element:
<configuration>
   <runtime>
      <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1">
         <dependentAssembly>
            <assemblyIdentity name="myAssembly"
                              publicKeyToken="32ab4ba45e0a69a1"
                              culture="neutral" />
            <codeBase version="1.0.0.0"
                      href="Version1/myAssembly.dll"/>
            <codeBase version="2.0.0.0"
                      href="Version2/myAssembly.dll"/>
         </dependentAssembly>
      </assemblyBinding>
   </runtime>
</configuration>

At build time you'll need to set Copy Local=false, to prevent Visual Studio from becoming confused. You'll also need a post-build step that sets up the Version1 and Version2 subdirectories.
Note that this assumes you can tell the DLLs apart based on the version number.

A: I actually solved the problem with a simple post build step to copy the dll to the application folder. VS treated each different, but at build time only copied the later.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Kobe will be back, but what do Lakers do this summer now?
By Kurt HelinApr 13, 2013, 11:02 AM EDT
Kobe Bryant isn't going to let his career end this way, limping off the court with a torn Achilles tendon.
It is going to end on his terns. He would not allow it to be any other way. He will be back. An hour after he limped off the court he was telling the media exactly that.
"I know I can do this," Bryant said. "It's fueling me. It's fueling me. I can feel it already."
As for when he'll be back, it will be some time next season (we'll have a better idea after his surgery but to get a full range of motion and leg strength back on these injuries often takes a year). He'll almost certainly miss games — and at his age him returning to his current level of play seems unlikely — but you know he'll be diligent about his recovery. He'll be back. And when he's back he'll be good.
But what do the Lakers do this summer to prepare for next season?
Pretty much what they were already going to do. They don't have a lot of other options.
First, re-sign Dwight Howard. He's still the future. He's still the man you build around for the post-Kobe era, it's just now that era will include part of next season. The Lakers will offer him a max contract, you can expect him to sign it.
Next, they need to decide what kind of team they will be, what kind of system they will run. Coach Mike D'Antoni came in with how he wanted to play but the Lakers have largely modified away from that as it was clear the personnel on the roster didn't fit that style. To D'Antoni's credit they have gotten away from some of what he wanted to do and they run "horns" and some traditional NBA sets in there. With Kobe out do they go to a system that is a lot of Steve Nash with the ball in his hands, running the pick-and-roll with Howard?
This summer Lakers management has to decide what kind of team they want to be, how to tweak the roster to fit that ideal.
The problem is with a max Howard deal in place the Lakers remain hamstrung in trying to reshape the roster because they are so far over the luxury tax line — they are expected to have a payroll in the $100 million range, which under the new system would mean $85 million in taxes on top of it. Kobe alone will make $30 million next season. Even for the Lakers deep pockets with their rich cable deal that is a steep, steep price. It limits the trades they can make and they can only sign free agents for the veteran minimum.
The Lakers however, need to get more athletic on the wings with better defense on the perimeter (particularly while Kobe is out) and they need better depth at the point guard because Steve Blake functions okay as a shooter when Kobe is the ball handler but they now need better ball handlers to play when Steve Nash is sits/is out.
If you're thinking trade, what do the Lakers have to trade that other teams want? Look at their rotation from Friday night outside Kobe/Howard (and Nash, who they would not move): Steve Blake, Earl Clark (who is a free agent this summer), Metta World Peace, Jodie Meeks and Antawn Jamison. On the bench there is Chris Duhon, Devin Ebanks and Jordan Hill and Darius Morris.
There is nothing there you can trade for any real value because those are not players other teams want.
Then there is Pau Gasol.
The Lakers may not move him, they aren't going to just ship him out for a lowball offer (which is why he wasn't traded at the deadline). But he is the one player there will be interest in — he has a steep $19 million price tag but it's the last season of his deal and he is still a very effective scorer in the post. Gasol could help a lot of teams.
What the Lakers will not take back in a deal is long-term contracts — right now the only guys on the books for the summer of 2014 are Steve Nash (for one more year) and the new Dwight Howard deal that would be signed in the summer. The Lakers will reshape the roster in a major way that summer.
And that likely will include Kobe — he wants this to end on his terms. That might mean a season or two after his current deal ends where he can play and show how he came back and could still play at a high level. Kobe would take a steep discount (ala Tim Duncan/Kevin Garnett) to be part of this reworked Lakers roster.
This was all pretty much the plan when Kobe was healthy. It doesn't change much. But the Lakers could feel very different next season.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Ryan's story was built on a foundation of integrity, honesty and community. And a belief that we offer something nobody else can. By creating a place for our employees to grow and thrive, we also create a culture where people share in each other's successes – and where they create new stories of success for our customers and our communities.
We value the diverse talents and perspectives each employee brings to the team. View our current commercial real estate career openings to see how you might build your Ryan story.
From the way we handle customer relationships to the culture we create for our employees, we're committed to putting people first.
At our core is the belief that we are all part of the same family – and we share the same values. We invest in our employees and reward them for their efforts.


text:
Harry Percy Minto (October 16, 1864 – September 27, 1915) was the superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary in the U.S. state of Oregon from 1914 until his death in 1915. Minto died in the line of duty, killed by an escaped inmate.

Early life
Harry Minto was born in Salem, Oregon, in 1864, the son of Oregon pioneer John Minto. In 1890, Minto was married to Jessie Glenn (1870 Salem, Oregon – 1956 Tampa, Florida). Minto was chief of police for the Salem, Oregon police department from 1891 to 1895 and he served two terms as the Marion County sheriff. He was elected sheriff in 1908, and served through 1913. His older brother, John Wilson Minto, was previously the sheriff as well as chief of police in Portland.

In 1914, Minto was appointed as the superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary by governor Oswald West. He replaced Berton K. Lawson, who had been involved in the events at Copperfield, Oregon early that year. As warden, he supervised the infamous serial killer Carl Panzram, in June 1915, when Panzram still was in his early twenties and before his known murderings.

Death
Warden Harry Minto believed in harsh treatment of inmates, including beatings and isolation, among other disciplinary measures. On September 27, 1915, inmate Otto Hooker escaped from a work gang at the prison and Minto was one of many law enforcement personnel who went searching for the escaped prisoner. After Hooker shot and wounded one law enforcement officer, Minto caught up with Hooker near Albany around 11:30 pm. There Minto challenged Hooker, and Hooker shot Minto in the head, killing him instantly. Hooker was mortally wounded the next day during capture. Minto's remains were cremated in Portland, Oregon. Hooker's accomplice, Carl Panzram, was executed in 1930 for killing a prison employee at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth.

See also
 Michael Francke, director of Oregon Department of Corrections, killed in line of duty in 1989.

References

1864 births
1915 deaths
1915 murders in the United States
19th-century American people
20th-century American people
Oregon politicians
People from Salem, Oregon
Oregon sheriffs
Male murder victims
People murdered in Oregon
Deaths by firearm in Oregon
American police officers killed in the line of duty
Oregon police officers
American municipal police chiefs

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


DANBURY, Conn., May 9, 2014 – Matthew J. White, senior vice president and chief financial officer of Praxair, Inc. (NYSE: PX), will address the Oppenheimer 9th Annual Industrial Growth Conference in New York on Tuesday, May 13, 2014, at 11:35 a.m. EDT. White will discuss Praxair's growth strategies and business outlook.
The presentation will be available on Praxair's website at www.praxair.com/investors.


You must click the confirmation link for your subscription to be complete.
If your confirmation email isn't in your 'Inbox', please look in your 'Spam' or 'Junk' folder for it.
After you confirm your subscription, you'll receive another email from me, with free gift of Mongolian BBQ recipes.
We hate spam too. Your info will remain 100% confidential with us. You can unsubscribe at any time.


text:
Q: How to determine why an R script is not working? I am trying to run this file and plot the based on the value, I have also  used the ui.R script for opening a file.
library(shiny)
library (flowCore)
library(flowViz)

shinyServer (function(input, output,server){
# trying to open a file
ff <- input$file
str(input$file)
 # to read a fcs file from a flow cytometer
read.FCS("input$file",
       transformation="linearize",
       alter.names=FALSE,
       column.pattern=NULL,
       invert.pattern = FALSE,
       decades=0,
       ncdf=FALSE,                      min.limit=NULL,
       truncate_max_range = TRUE,
       dataset=NULL,
       emptyValue=TRUE )

 filedata <- reactive
 ({
 ff <- input$file
 str(input$file)

              read.FCS("input$file",
               transformation="linearize",
               alter.names=FALSE,
               column.pattern=NULL,
               invert.pattern = FALSE,
               decades=0,
               ncdf=FALSE,                      min.limit=NULL,
               truncate_max_range = TRUE,
               dataset=NULL,
               emptyValue=TRUE )
  output$distPlot <- renderPlot
  ({
  lg <- rectangleGate("FS INT LIN"=c(350,700),"SS INT LIN"=c(50,250))

  lymp <- Subset(ff,lg)
  # to compensate the values
  bx<-biexponentialTransform()
  bx1<-transformList(c("FL1 INT LOG","FL4 INT LOG"),bx)
  bx2<-transformList(c("FL4 INT LOG","FL2 INT LOG"),bx)
  bx3<-transformList(c("FL4 INT LOG","FL3 INT LOG"),bx)
  CD45CD3<-transform(lymp,bx1)
  CD3CD4<-transform(lymp,bx2)
  CD3CD8<-transform(lymp,bx3)

  # generate bins based on input$bins from ui.R
  plot (ff, c("FS INT LIN","SS INT LIN"),xlim = c(100,1050),ylim=c(-10,900),
  nbin=260)
  xyplot(`SS INT LIN` ~ `FS INT LIN`,ff,filter=lg)
  plot(lymp, c("FL1 INT LOG","FL2 INT LOG"),xlim = c(100,1050),ylim=
  c(-10,900), nbin=260)
  })
  # i want to run this app
  })
  shinyApp(ui=ui,server=server)
 runApp("flowcyto", display.mode = "showcase")
 }
 )

I have tried to use a few posts I have seen here but none seem to be working. I am working on trying to recreate a flow cyto based analysis system for automation, the first step is to call the file and plot the respective plot.
The error I am getting is:
Warning: Error in .getReactiveEnvironment()$currentContext: Operation not allowed without an active reactive context. (You tried to do something that can only be done from inside a reactive expression or observer.)
Stack trace (innermost first):
    46: .getReactiveEnvironment()$currentContext
    45: .subset2(x, "impl")$get
    44: $.reactivevalues
    43: $ [C:\Users\ramaswamynathan.v\Desktop\r script\flowcyto/server.R#14]
    42: server [C:\Users\ramaswamynathan.v\Desktop\r script\flowcyto/server.R#14]
     1: runApp
Error in .getReactiveEnvironment()$currentContext() :
  Operation not allowed without an active reactive context. (You tried to do something that can only be done from inside a reactive expression or observer.)

library(shiny)
# Define UI for application that draws a histogram
shinyUI(fluidPage(

# Application title
titlePanel("FLOW CYTOMETRY DATA"),

titlePanel("Flow Cytometry"),
# Upload File
fileInput("file", label = h3("File input")),

hr(),
fluidRow(column(4, verbatimTextOutput("value")))

))
 my UI page for now is just to open the file from a location and use it to run my program.

A: To determine why a R script is not working you just have to read the error or copy/paste it in your browser if you really don't understand.
So your main question shouldn't be this and you don't even say that it's a shiny problem which is a specific package that not all R users knows.
For your shiny problem, R is saying that you do not respect the shiny's reactive approach. In fact, there is a lot of errors which I corrected here :
library(shiny)
library (flowCore)
library(flowViz)

server <- shinyServer (function(input, output){
# trying to open a file
 filedata <- reactive
 ({
 ff <- input$file
 return(read.FCS("input$file",
               transformation="linearize",
               alter.names=FALSE,
               column.pattern=NULL,
               invert.pattern = FALSE,
               decades=0,
               ncdf=FALSE,                      min.limit=NULL,
               truncate_max_range = TRUE,
               dataset=NULL,
               emptyValue=TRUE ))})
  output$distPlot <- renderPlot
  ({
  lg <- rectangleGate("FS INT LIN"=c(350,700),"SS INT LIN"=c(50,250))

  lymp <- Subset(filedata(),lg)
  # to compensate the values
  bx<-biexponentialTransform()
  bx1<-transformList(c("FL1 INT LOG","FL4 INT LOG"),bx)
  bx2<-transformList(c("FL4 INT LOG","FL2 INT LOG"),bx)
  bx3<-transformList(c("FL4 INT LOG","FL3 INT LOG"),bx)
  CD45CD3<-transform(lymp,bx1)
  CD3CD4<-transform(lymp,bx2)
  CD3CD8<-transform(lymp,bx3)

  # generate bins based on input$bins from ui.R
  plot (filedata(), c("FS INT LIN","SS INT LIN"),xlim = c(100,1050),ylim=c(-10,900),
  nbin=260)
  xyplot(`SS INT LIN` ~ `FS INT LIN`,ff,filter=lg)
  plot(lymp, c("FL1 INT LOG","FL2 INT LOG"),xlim = c(100,1050),ylim=
  c(-10,900), nbin=260)
  })
  # i want to run this app
  })
      shinyApp(ui=ui,server=server)

But the problem is that there is a lot of other confusions that I can not correct. For exemple in your renderPlot you are doing three plots...
For your mistakes you passed server in shinyServer which is absolutely absurd. You also include the renderPlot in the reactive  You call shinyApp in your server part. Have you even an ui part ??? If yes you should add it to your post because I suppose that it contains errors. I can't be sure that the correction is exhaustive because without an uipart it can not be tried.
I strongly recommand you to have a look to the shiny homepage.


Wade Floyd, grew up with a passion for sports and dreams of playing at high levels, but he couldn't afford the expensive camps or elite training programmes out there. So he decided to change the system.
In 2010 he founded CoachTube with the ambition of giving every athlete in the world access to the instruction, knowledge, and the motivation they need to grow and progress as athletes and students.
He does this by providing access to online training from the world's best coaches. These lessons are available on-demand, so that students can learn when and where it's convenient for them.
CoachTube is all about providing great instructional online coaching to both aspiring kids, as well as more mature sports people looking to step up and improve their game and detailed knowledge of their sport or chosen sports.
With rugby union being one of the fastest growing sports in the USA and the launch in April 2016 of the first professional league. The sport is at an all time high in the USA with more and more kids of both sexes signing up to learn to play.
Therefore Wade and his team needed a top coach to represent Rugby on their roster of top coaches.
We are absolutely delighted they choose James for this inaugural and very prestigious role. Not only because of his International standing within the game with over 70 caps for England but because of his acknowledged and widely recognised skills as a highly effective coach.
The fact he has just written a highly critically acclaimed and very popular book on rugby training – An Introduction to becoming and Remaining RugyFit, also helped!!
CoachTube operates like an app store for coaching and instructional courses for all sports, featuring videos and detailed training from the best coaches across the web.
CoachTube provided a wide variety of sporting experts no matter what the subject is. There firm belief is that students and athletes from any location should be able to learn about any topic, from the best coaches anywhere in the world.
CoachTube allows coaches to build their brand by showcasing their skills and company through creating online courses and exposing them to a large audience that would be harder to reach using traditional methods.
A typical CoachTube course works along the following lines. Courses are made up of lessons (types: video, text, document, and downloadable) that are grouped together by "chapters" and Sport. Most courses on CoachTube have anywhere between 30-120 minutes of instructional content broken down into 2-10 minute video lessons. At minimum, courses need to be at least 10 minutes long and have no less than 70% video content.
Once the course is purchased, the student has access to all course materials indefinitely, just like an on-demand channel!
Our mission at CoachTube is to give every athlete, regardless of budget, location, or current abilities, access to the instructions, knowledge, and motivation they need to grow and progress as athletes and students.


text:
// Copyright © 2010-2016, Esko Luontola <www.orfjackal.net>
// This software is released under the Apache License 2.0.
// The license text is at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

package org.specsy.scala

import fi.jumi.api.RunVia
import org.specsy.Specsy
import org.specsy.bootstrap.ContextDealer
import org.specsy.core.Closure

import scala.language.implicitConversions

@RunVia(classOf[Specsy])
abstract class ScalaSpecsy {

  private val context = ContextDealer.take()

  /**
   * Declares a child spec.
   */
  def spec(name: String)(body: => Unit) {
    context.spec(name, new ScalaClosure(body))
  }

  protected implicit def String_to_NestedSpec(name: String): NestedSpec = new NestedSpec(name)

  protected class NestedSpec(name: String) {
    /**
     * Declares a child spec.
     */
    def >>(body: => Unit) {
      context.spec(name, new ScalaClosure(body))
    }
  }

  /**
   * Defers the execution of a piece of code until the end of the current spec.
   * All deferred closures will be executed in LIFO order when the current spec exits.
   */
  def defer(block: => Unit) {
    context.defer(new ScalaClosure(block))
  }

  /**
   * Makes all child specs of the current spec able to see each other's side-effects.
   */
  def shareSideEffects() {
    context.shareSideEffects()
  }
}

private class ScalaClosure(closure: => Unit) extends Closure {
  def run() {
    closure
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Role Of Minor Characters In Pride And Prejudice
Book: Pride and Prejudice
The Role of Minor Characters in Austen's Pride and Prejudice Perhaps the most striking part of Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice is her mastery of characters and the effects that each has on the plot, themes, and the other characters' actions. Though her minor characters are much less visible than the major ones, she still uses them as an integral part of the novel by weaving them into situations to enhance the plot and themes. Caroline Bingley is first introduced with the crowd of her brother, Mr. Bingley, his friend, Mr. Darcy, and her other sister, Mrs. Hurst.
Her superior place in the class system compared to those in the Bennet family is evident both in the narration and dialogue of Austen's novel. Her opposition to Elizabeth stems primarily from her disdain for her unladylike manner, (such as in Chapter 17 when Elizabeth meets Jane after she falls ill, appearing with petticoats six inches deep in mud) as well as her jealousy in terms of Darcy's favoritism to her. However, her opposition to Jane is only due to her desire to have Mr. Bingley marry Georgia Darcy, a girl possessing a much higher birth and wealth than the equally pleasant Jane Bennet.
Like many other characters in this novel, her belief that love is less important in marriage than the opportunity to increase one's place in society is an important theme felt by every character. Charlotte Lucas is another character that embodies the previously mentioned theme of practicality over love in marriage. When Charlotte marries Mr. Collins after Elizabeth rejects him, her willingness to sacrifice the security of a comfortable marriage with Collins over the happiness of a marriage of love is shown.
While the more class-conscious Mrs. Bennet credits Charlotte for this decision, Elizabeth can only feel pity for her friend as she feels that Charlotte will be doomed to a lifetime of insipid company. A minor character with many ties to different plot lines is Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Both as an aunt to Mr. Darcy and as Mr. Collins's employer, she interacts with many characters to forward both the plot and themes of the novel. She is perhaps the greatest example of Austen's belief that an obsession with class is silly. By her words and actions, she shows that she believes many are below her stature.
Later in the novel, when she and Elizabeth take a walk and converse on the subject of Mr. Darcy's partiality to Elizabeth, she continues the well-established theme of practicality over love in marriage by stating that Mr. Darcy is to marry her daughter Anne, not one of a lowly stature such as Elizabeth. Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, aunt and uncle of the Bennet daughters, are perhaps the most admirable minor characters. These two characters serve not only to forward the plot, but also to act as a comparison to Mr. Gardiner's sister, Mrs. Bennet.
Acting as parents to both Elizabeth and to Lydia in two very different situations, they exhibit much of the sense that Mrs. Bennet lacks in both controlling Lydia and nurturing Elizabeth. This pair also acts as a vital stepping stone between Darcy and Elizabeth in terms of class stature. By both giving Elizabeth an opportunity to break her former prejudices of Darcy when they visit Pemberley by finding out his better qualities via the maid, as well as even giving Elizabeth better company than her immediate family in terms of respectability, these two characters allow the gap between Darcy and Elizabeth to be bridged somewhat.
Minor characters can help reveal what the major characters cannot tell about themselves, both by being confidantes and by offering a standard to compare and contrast the other characters with. Though minor characters seem to play little importance in the novel when inspected upon the larger scale, one cannot ignore their importance in terms of both plot and theme enhancement.
Author: Alfred Gobeil
Related Posts about Role Of Minor Characters In Pride And Prejudice
Pride and Prejudice Literary Criticism
Character Foils in Pride and Prejudice
Sarcasm in Pride and Prejudice
Significance of Title Pride and Prejudice
Social Stereotyping in Pride and Prejudice
Topic: Role Of Minor Characters In Pride And Prejudice


I'm bored. I need to take a few moments away from this tedious document I have been asked to work on.
Maybe I'll work on describing the recipe for my lunch today. A seafood bean salad.
First get some beans. A can will do. In fact that is the whole idea of a workday lunch. It must be in a can. The nutritional values of beans out of a can aren't inferior to beans which thumbed their rounded noses at such a wonderful convenience. It costs far less than beans stored or managed in other ways and the contents remain protected and unblemished by time and other elements which usually render food less palatable.
Care must be exercised when lifting the ring that is attached to the container as it is known to come off quite easily before completing its task. Like an elderly man is wont to do with respect to some bodily functions.
This step is delicate. Lose the ring and you're in strife. Open the lid too much and you're in strife too but the next day.
You do this by gently lifting the ring just a few millimeters before inserting your index finger through the ring. Once firmly in the ring, hold the index finger down firmly onto the edge of the ring before embarking on the next, delicate step of slowly but firmly pulling the ring away from the edge of the lid, ensuring no jerking action is involved. Do this in one slow and continuous action and you will see the lid coming away from the can, revealing beautifully canned beans.
Do not remove the lid all the way. Pull the ring back about half way, just enough to drain some of the liquid and later, scoop out some of those lovely beans.
You want to remove the liquid as otherwise the salad edges closer to a casserole, which I often pretend it to be when I don't perform the next step with the care it requires.
Once the lid is open for about a centimeter or so, slowly push the lid back to keep the beans in the can as one pours out some of the liquid.
You don't want to pour out all of the liquid because the tenet of a workday lunch of this sort is economy. This requires retention of say one half of the content of your now opened but ready to drain beans, for use in another workday down the track.
Slowly drain about just under half of the liquid. Drain it straight into the sinkhole. Take care however, to aim the draining at the center of the sinkhole. Otherwise you mess up the sink and it sets you back in terms of one of the secondary objectives of a quick, economical and convenient workday lunch which is to minimise mess and cleaning up. It also saves you a bit of dosh in terms of detergent etc.
With the required amount of liquid drained, gently tip out some of the beans (about half) into a container. You can if you wish, use a teaspoon for this. The washing up is fine as the spoon can be re-used for mixing/tossing anyway.
Leave the beans in the container and stand back. Have a look at the first element of your salad. Make sure it does not have too much of the liquid that was in the container as it may otherwise look, taste and act more like a casserole.
Once you are satisfied it is moist without being wet, set it aside by leaving it in the container without the lid on. This will further dry the beans.
When safely set aside you may then proceed with the second (and final) element.
This is a seafood salad so selection of seafood is essential. You can use shellfish but the country of origin of such products is questionable these days. Hygiene and integrity or purity of product can now leave consumers in doubt.
For this recipe I have selected a fish.
Some may say this fish is suffering from fish stock stress from as a result of over-fishing or comes with the stigma or perils of commercial fish farming.
What trumps these considerations however are the principles that govern and dictate the choice of a workday lunch.
The elements of cost and efficiency override concerns of social responsibility for everyday consumption as one otherwise becomes spiritually pure(r) but never gets past a smugness that borders on a weak bank.
This fish is economical and in the form I have chosen, it comes with all the advantages I have described for the first element.
The canning process is far superior to bread slicing technology man often attributes to be the best invention.
In this form, you also have the advantage of choosing the flavouring, which in turn further achieves the objectives of economy and efficiency. There is no (or less) need for seasoning or dressing. Depending on the beans you have selected, you may want to choose something which adds some spice and sweetness to the salad, such as sweet chili. The selection is easy as the flavour is also emblazoned on the can. Like I said, canning is a wonderful invention.
However, the can means you apply the same amount of care and respect to this element as you do for the first. Repeat the process of carefully extracting the fish.
Again – as before – gently lift the ring that is attached to the can and then give it your finger. Insert that finger through the ring and gently lift it so that the lid opens ever so gently. Then with a firm and sure stroke lift the ring to pry open the lid. Open the lid as much as possible without completely tearing it away from the can. Leaving the lid attached to the can will again save you some time and effort in terms of cleaning up and discarding the can.
Using the teaspoon you had used to remove the half can of beans, remove all of the fish from the can.
You may in the interest of cost and efficiency, place the fish straight into the container with the beans. Spread it out over the beans as much as possible. This will save you time in a later step. It also helps you see if you need to say, dress the fish and beans with say, some olive oil to add some moisture and texture to the salad.
Finally, give the salad a mix. Stir it well but don't over work it, particularly if you use beans which are soft and delicate. Sometimes I use other legumes such as lentils which is fine and would allow you to stir and mix all you want.
It really doesn't matter what legume you choose. They all make you do the rudest thing and provide not much difference in nutritional values. Taste matters but again, remember the context. Context is king and often makes one look far wiser than one really is. This is work lunch we're dealing with. In my case it all starts and ends at my desk. No one sees or knows what happens but yourself. And it is all over within 10 minutes (depending on what you read on the internet at that time).
With little between them the choice of legumes really comes down to cost. I often get mine for a dollar a tin. Ditto the seafood. The result can be very satisfying.
I've made mine dry enough to still call it a salad so I ensure the dish is well stored in the fridge at the office until it is time for service.
No need to plate up. Glassware is clean, hygienic, sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. The notion that one starts to eat with one's eyes cannot be harmed by this recipe plated up on glassware.
Keep it closed and refrigerated and Arthur Balfour! Or, to put it more conventionally, Bob's your Uncle!
Recall I said we keep half the beans for the next time? With only half a tin used each time, my lunch is often a very economical dollar and a half.
That allows me room for dessert.
I choose a seasonal fruit. Although, with global trade enhanced by the great Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement now in place, the term "seasonal fruit" seems to be losing its impact. We had strawberries through winter and with temperatures now soaring into the high 20's or low 30's I still get sweet juicy oranges. And economical too.
A whole bag (of say 6 fruit) can be had for a mere $3.
So with half a dollar for dessert which is sweet, succulent and makes you go like no other dessert can, the total cost of a very easy, nutritious and complete lunch is a mere $2.
I should say the time I have taken to write/make this entry is the entire amount of time I have taken to prepare such lunches this whole entire week, combined.


Discussion in 'Raising Baby Chicks' started by chickensista, Mar 20, 2008.
Hi eveyone! I'm so happy the new girls are here. The 2 SLW's are missing - feed store said the hatchery messed up... Should be here this afternoon or tomorrow. But the other girls would like to make their debut!
I can't answer your question, but those sure some cuties! They look really healthy, too. Congrats!
What breed are the 2 brown striped ones??? I have 2 of them myself and have no idea what they are.
My little chipmunks are Ameraucanas, but I've heard Welsummers are striped as well. Where did you get yours from? The Welsummers are harder to come by, I think.
Can't wait to get the SLW's!


text:
Q: Mule no cipher suites in common I have just upgraded to Mule 3.7 and getting this error. I'm using the same keystore file as I was using on 3.5. I haven't changed anything in tls-default.conf.
ERROR 2016-04-04 05:55:25,450 [[NEWSI].http.request.dispatch.8443.01 org.mule.exception.DefaultSystemExceptionStrategy: Caught exception in Exception Strategy: no cipher suites in common
javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException: no cipher suites in common
    at sun.security.ssl.Alerts.getSSLException(Alerts.java:192) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.fatal(SSLSocketImpl.java:1949) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.Handshaker.fatalSE(Handshaker.java:302) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.Handshaker.fatalSE(Handshaker.java:292) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.ServerHandshaker.chooseCipherSuite(ServerHandshaker.java:1035) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.ServerHandshaker.clientHello(ServerHandshaker.java:738) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.ServerHandshaker.processMessage(ServerHandshaker.java:221) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.Handshaker.processLoop(Handshaker.java:979) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.Handshaker.process_record(Handshaker.java:914) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:1062) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.performInitialHandshake(SSLSocketImpl.java:1375) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readDataRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:928) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at sun.security.ssl.AppInputStream.read(AppInputStream.java:105) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at java.io.BufferedInputStream.fill(BufferedInputStream.java:246) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at java.io.BufferedInputStream.read(BufferedInputStream.java:265) ~[?:1.8.0_77]
    at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpParser.readRawLine(HttpParser.java:78) ~[commons-httpclient-3.1.jar:?]
    at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpParser.readLine(HttpParser.java:106) ~[commons-httpclient-3.1.jar:?]
    at org.mule.transport.http.HttpServerConnection.readLine(HttpServerConnection.java:245) ~[mule-transport-http-3.7.0.jar:3.7.0]
    at org.mule.transport.http.HttpServerConnection.getRequestLine(HttpServerConnection.java:557) ~[mule-transport-http-3.7.0.jar:3.7.0]
    at org.mule.transport.http.HttpRequestDispatcherWork.run(HttpRequestDispatcherWork.java:67) ~[mule-transport-http-3.7.0.jar:3.7.0]
    at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142) [?:1.8.0_77]
    at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617) [?:1.8.0_77]
    at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745) [?:1.8.0_77]

This is my httpsConnector definition in mule-config.xml
<https:connector name="httpsConnector">
    <https:tls-client path="keystore.jks" storePassword="1234"/>
    <https:tls-key-store path="keystore.jks" keyPassword="1234" storePassword="1234"/>
    <https:tls-server path="keystore.jks" storePassword="1234"/>
</https:connector>

Any help is appreciated

A: Try to debug with Vm arguments. So that you can get better idea.
You can use following arguments.
-Djavax.net.debug=all
-Djavax.net.debug=ssl

If you still not sure about what you are missing paste you host name in the following URL it will give you the which cipher suite that the host you are trying to connect is using
https://www.ssllabs.com/

A: Download the keystore explore to view your keystore.jks.
If your key is created by DSA algorithm, running Anypoint Studio on Windows will give you "no cipher suites in common" error which you don't see it on Mac

Create a new Java Key Store with RSA algorithm will get rid of this problem. Replace the old keystore with the RSA one.


We specialize in modeling with R³S Modeler. We can help by improving the efficiency of your models. We can also offer some smaller-scale model implementation services.
RNA Analytics have been involved in helping insurers prepare for IFRS 17 for several years and have undertaken successful implementations for many clients using the R³S software.
Solvency II has been in effect since the beginning of 2016 and we have helped many of our clients to use R³S Modeler for many aspects of regulatory compliance.
We undertake many types of implementation work, from simple model enhancement to full replacement of existing tools and improving the models and processes.
Over time, models are changed to meet new demands and software and hardware is upgraded. These factors often give opportunities to improve model efficiency.
Due to the increasing complexity of the risk environment and the development of more advanced ways to measure and manage risk, the importance of risk management and hedging is increasing.
IFRS 4 Phase I, which was introduced in March 2004, permitted companies to continue their existing accounting practices for insurance contracts, and enhanced existing insurance liability valuation methods by requiring insurers to perform a Liability Adequacy Test.
A model for an entire enterprise can help you assess the merits of alternative management strategies or the impact of changes in the insurance market and the regulatory environment.
The introduction of IFRS changed the way employers value the retirement and other long-term benefits they provide to their employees.
The R³S Modeler model-development environment can create run archive files containing executable model code.
The R³S Toolkit provides APIs that enable you to build your own interfaces and dashboards so that you can run models or embed the running of models in other applications.
Whether starting out with a new software system, developing and pricing new products for launch, or implementing new regulations, people often need to build accurate and realistic models as quickly as possible.
The R³S IFRS 17 Package is a library of R³S Modeler code for IFRS17 calculations. It includes a range of example calculations and processes that you can use when developing your own IFRS 17 models.
We are pleased to announce that during the 2nd quarter of 2018, RNA Analytics and SecondFloor agreed to a partnership to better serve the insurance market in Asia-Pacific region for implementing IFRS 17. The aim of this partnership is to license and distribute SecondFloor's eFrame® software under the chosen name: R³S eFrame® Enterprise. By combining the software package and expertise of each party, RNA Analytics is now able to provide clients in Asia-Pacific with complete, scalable, end-to-end solutions for IFRS 17. The partnership will capitalize on RNA Analytics strong presence and expertise in actuarial modelling across Asia-Pacific, particularly for IFRS 17; alongside SecondFloor's excellent solutions and technology innovations to automate reporting processes. The teams of RNA Analytics and SecondFloor have a strong and long-established relationship, working together since 2010. RNA Analytics' advanced and flexible actuarial and risk modelling capability (R³S), together with SecondFloor's software, process control, data management and reporting will enable insurers to meet the upcoming IFRS 17 regulatory requirements. eFrame® is a very powerful data and process management tool, designed to manage reporting cycles in the highly regulated financial industry. eFrame® gathers data from across the organization for analysis and reporting purposes. The proven technology supports top-tier insurers across Europe with repeatable and auditable reporting processes. About RNA Analytics RNA Analytics was established in 2017 but is formed around a software development and consulting team that has been working together for many years. RNA Analytics offers insurance firms a comprehensive actuarial and risk modeling solution that provides essential analytics and regulatory metrics to help meet the needs of financial services companies worldwide. The solution supports the modeling of insurance and asset portfolios across a spectrum of risk-based regulatory regimes including Solvency II and IFRS. It helps insurers meet requirements for more realistic and complex modeling to enable critical risk-informed decision making. R³S is a leading software product for financial and actuarial analysis, designed in response to the increasing focus on risk and capital management and the demand for more realistic modeling in financial analysis. About SecondFloor SecondFloor is a market leading specialized RegTech supplier of risk and regulatory reporting solutions in Europe. Our mission is to accelerate reporting with innovative and agile solutions, that facilitate the reporting and governance processes of our customers. In complex regulated environments – with new requirements, more reporting and shorter timelines – our clients feel confident with controlled and audited processes that produce the required reports on time. SecondFloor offers scalable solutions that fit any size of company in the highly regulated financial sector. For more information about our solutions and services and/or the established partnership in Asia-Pacific region, please contact via e-mail:sales@rnaanalytics.com.
please select the appropriate radio button and submit your message via the form below.
we will contact you as soon as possible regarding your query.


text:
HISTORIC: Ethiopian Airlines returns to Somalia after four decades
Africa's largest airline, Ethiopian Airlines, has resumed scheduled flights to Mogadishu, Somalia after 41 years.
Ethiopian Bombardier Q400 aircraft departed Addis Ababa Bole International Airport at 10:00 AM scheduled to arrive in Mogadishu at 11:30 AM. Mogadishu has become the 117th international destination for Ethiopian. The resumption of the Ethiopian flights to Somalia is believed to bolster political and economic ties between the two countries.
At the inauguration of the flight held at the VIP Saloon at the Addis Ababa Bole International Airport, Ethiopian Airlines Group CEO Tewolde Gebremariam noted that Ethiopian would offer seamless connections to Somalis to the rest of the world. Tewolde said that the situations did not allow Ethiopian to serve Somalia in the past 40 years. "Somalis have been suffering from bad air connectivity. They were forced to go through three or four points to reach their final destinations. Now Ethiopian will connect Mogadishu with its global network of 116 international destinations and resolve this challenge. This is good news for the large diaspora from Somalia residing in Europe and North America," Tewolde said.
Ethiopian will be working with a local airline in Somalia, Juba Airlines, with a codeshare agreement. Tewolde said that passengers from Somalia can now travel to Europe, the US or Canada with a short layover time at Addis Ababa Bole International Airport or they can spend a day or two in Addis Ababa visiting friends and relatives and reconnect their flights. Tewolde acknowledged Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) for his effort to restore peace and bolster regional cooperation in the Horn of Africa.
According to Tewolde, when Ethiopian opened for booking, the flights were fully booked within a few days. "This shows that there is a big market and we will increase the flight frequency in due course," he said. Ethiopian hopes to increase the thrice weekly flights to Mogadishu to daily shortly.
"We will transport Somalia's export to Ethiopia and Europe. We will bring fish to Ethiopia and we will also transport other goods to Europe. Ethiopian will contribute its share in rebuilding Somalia's economy," he said.
Abdullahi Mohammed, deputy head of mission at the Somalia Embassy in Addis Ababa, noted that Somalis warmly welcome the resumption of Ethiopian Airlines flight to Mogadishu. "This would make travel between the two countries easy. I myself suffered to come to Addis Ababa. I used to spend four or five hours in Djibouti or Nairobi to come to Addis Ababa. Now with less than two hours we can directly come to Addis Ababa and this would not have been possible without the political leadership's decision," Mohammed said.
Mohammed requested executives of Ethiopian Airlines to continue assisting Somalis in connecting them with the rest of the world.
Mohammed told The Reporter that the Somali government has tightened airport security adding that there were no security threats at Mogadishu Airport. "I can guarantee you that the risk is zero. We have international airlines such as Turkish Airlines and Djibouti Airlines that fly to Mogadishu. Qatar Airways and Kenya Airways will soon start flights to Mogadishu. There is no problem with airport security," he said. "As Ethiopian starts operation to Mogadishu more international airlines will be coming," he added.
Ethiopian will soon launch flights to Manchester, Istanbul and Moscow.
Source: the reporter Ethiopia