Is it possible for me to use  in a Commander deck that does not use black? I am making a Blue, Green, and White commander deck, and I would like to add Westvale Abbey. Could I use it?
The official deck construction rules for Commander (nee EDH) at  say that 'A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.'  How does this apply to dual-faced cards with faces of different colors, such as  out of Innistrad or  from Dark Ascension, where the color of the transformed face of the card is different from the color of the 'main face'?  The spirit of the rules would seem to suggest that these cards are the colors of both faces for deck construction purposes, but not only are these spells always cast as the front face, the front face is the only one 'seen' in other game zones: for instance, when the card's in the library, you could find Elbrus by searching your library for an artifact, but you couldn't find Withengar Unbound by searching your library for a creature card.  Could Elbrus then, for instance, be played in any Commander deck, or just one with a (partly) Black general?
Why do electrons not fully fill up all the orbitals sequentially? Why do electrons not fully fill up all the orbitals sequentially? By this I mean: why don't the electrons fully take up the previous orbit first and then move onto the next orbit? Take calcium for example, it's electron config is 2, 8, 8, 2. Why isn't it 2, 8, 10? Why does another orbit need to be created when there are still many spots to fill up?  (I know that this is a chemistry question in a physics forum, but I really could not find a chemistry or even a broader science type forum here ) Potentiometer for two 12V/1.1A fans in parallel Why is $\pi$ irrational? I've a few questions in mind:   Why is $\pi$ irrational? If it is, then how can 2 rational quantities (circumference, diameter) can produce irrational number? How are we able to determine digits of $\pi$ accurately? Layers with different directional drop shadows in Photoshop I am wondering how to have 2 different directional drop shadows in the one file with Photoshop. e.g. 2 different type layers — one has a drop shadow at 90 degrees, the other at -45 degrees.  Currently it seems Photoshop only lets me have 1 universal direction for the whole file, which I find really pointless.   I know how to apply different drop shadows and merge down layers to achieve the same thing, but its tedious and not exactly streamlined for making future changes to that layer.  How is this achieved? Orange squares appearing on render? I'm trying to render a scene in Blender, and as of yesterday (it was not doing this when I was working on it 2-3 days ago), I am seeing orange squares dancing around the rendered image. Google tells me that these are render tiles (I think), but what are they, why are they there, and how do I get rid of them? Prove $\vdash \neg(\square F\land p)$ in $KD$ Possible to draw an Item in a Grid with only 3 sides of a Frame? How can you depend on test code from another module in Maven?    Example, I have 2 modules:   Base Main   I would like a test case in Main to extend a base test class in Base.  Is this possible?  Update: Found an , which involves creating a test jar. Looking for solo (one person) RPGs - do they exist? I am looking to find out if solo RPGs exist, and which you'd recommend.  I do not mean "one-on-one" 1 player + 1 GM games. I really mean "1 person."  Update: After receiving two (fine, up-voted) answers that indicate Choose Your Own Adventure solutions (which rocks with nostalgia), I should add that I'm not looking for simple linear decision tree gaming. A counterexample: I've got my own little creative-writing mini-game where I write out a story, but once every 5 sentences a series of dice-rolls forces my written sentence into something else, and I have to adapt as writer. Not really an RPG, but also non-linear. What new capabilities do user-defined literals add to C++? introduces  which will allow the introduction of new literal syntax based on existing literals (int, hex, string, float) so that any type will be able to have a literal presentation.  Examples:  // imaginary numbers std::complex&lt;long double&gt; operator "" _i(long double d) // cooked form {      return std::complex&lt;long double&gt;(0, d);  } auto val = 3.14_i; // val = complex&lt;long double&gt;(0, 3.14)  // binary values int operator "" _B(const char*); // raw form int answer = 101010_B; // answer = 42  // std::string std::string operator "" _s(const char* str, size_t /*length*/)  {      return std::string(str);  }  auto hi = "hello"_s + " world"; // + works, "hello"_s is a string not a pointer  // units assert(1_kg == 2.2_lb); // give or take 0.00462262 pounds   At first glance this looks very cool but I'm wondering how applicable it really is, when I tried to think of having the suffixes _AD and _BC create dates I found that it's problematic due to operator order. 1974/01/06_AD would first evaluate 1974/01 (as plain ints) and only later the 06_AD (to say nothing of August and September having to be written without the 0 for octal reasons). This can be worked around by having the syntax be 1974-1/6_AD so that the operator evaluation order works but it's clunky.   So what my question boils down to is this, do you feel this feature will justify itself? What other literals would you like to define that will make your C++ code more readable?    Updated syntax to fit the final draft on June 2011 Suppose $X$ is binomial $B(n,p)$. How can I find the probability that $X$ is even ?  I know $$P(X = k ) = \frac{ n!}{(n-k)!k!} p^k(1-p)^{n-k} $$  where $X=1,....,n$. Are they just asking to find $P(X = 2m )$ for some $m &gt; 0$ ? Adjust space between entries in LoF and LoT Para 5, , by      If the Lord would show thee but this one   thing, -- that to use "thee" and "thou" to a particular person is   proper language, and Scripture language; and that to say "you," is   improper, and arose from pride, and nourisheth pride, and so is of the   world, and not of the Father; and thou should bow thy spirit to him in   this one thing, thou little thinkest what a work it would make within thee, and how strongly the spirit of darkness would fight against thy   subjection thereto. The Lord lead thee as he seeth good, and give thee   faithfully to follow; for else, if the Lord should lead in any thing,   and thou not follow in that thing, his Spirit would be grieved and   vexed thereby, and thy heart in danger of being hardened by the   deceitfulness of sin.   What is the Lord giving thee faithfully to follow?   The grey claims that the reader thinks little of the significance of stressing 'thee' and 'thou' over 'you'. So I'd guess that the Lord is giving 'thee' this caution? If I'm right, why is there no direct object in the bolded? I recognise grammatical differences in the 1600s, but still want to learn. Is there an official rule that the minimum damage can't be negative? "My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner" I just stumbled upon a :     My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner. How does it look?   Sure enough, the top comment immediately points out that it should be "my wife's and my". However, a cross-post to the Grammar subreddit produced :     It's fine as it is written. "my wife and I" is a noun phrase, functioning as a subjective pronoun in the singular and made possessive with the apostrophe. It is exactly the same as "our".      It seems weird because you would never use "I's" on its own but it is not on its own here - it is part of a noun phrase.   That's a rather intriguing argument. Does it hold any water? Deferring admission to a computer science graduate program Was Red Shirt Security a rotating detail, like K.P, or was it a dedicated branch of Star Fleet like the M.P's are to the US Army? As I channel surfed the other day, I accidentally found an episode of Star Trek TOS, and I settled in to watch it. As always, it was a bad day to be a landing party Red Shirt Security person.    Their apparent lack of skill (training?) made me wonder: Was Red Shirt Security a rotating detail, like K.P. (Kitchen Patrol), that crew members with regular assigned duties were ordered to do when it was their turn, or was it a dedicated branch of Star Fleet like the M.P's (Military Police) are to the US Army? Subject-verb inversion / verb-subject-object -- is this correct? I recently read the following in a schoolbook:     Wrote the researchers, "[...]"   I wonder if this is correct English. I have seen it a couple of more times. Is this just a matter of preference? English doesn't really have a very liberal word order, unless you're writing poetry or the like.  Can anyone tell me what this is called? I found some information on subject-verb inversion, but it only seems to be when the object is in front, but in this case, the word order is verb-subject-object. Adding a Method to an Existing Object Instance Gaps between arrows and labels