## subject “of” or subject “on”

If you were to indicate that a subject belongs to a specific field (say, physics), would you say “the subject on physics” or “the subject of physics”?

I found a similar question as to whether “the knowledge on” or “the knowledge of” is correct, and it turns out more native speaker point to “knowledge of” as the standard and correct usage.

Anyway, a search in Netspeak reveals that “subject of” has 7.7 million times of usage as opposed to “subject on” at 169 thousand times.
http://www.netspeak.org/#query=subject+%253F

Here’s the result from Google.

But I still wonder if the word subject can be followed by “on” and then a specific field (physics), or if I should just always stick to the preposition “of”.

I have this question in mind because I found this online news titled “Perkasa Wants Students To Learn This New Subject On The Malaysian Constitution”
http://says.com/my/news/perkasa-wants-asas-perlembagaan-to-be-taught-in-schools

Of course, I’m aware the news was not written by a native American.

I was educated to use “on” to indicate a noun belongs to a specific field.
Is this a wrong concept that has never been used by native speakers?

## Color and thickness of lines (backaddress underlined and subject underlined) in scrlttr2

I am trying to change the colors of some lines in scrlttr2, especially the lines below the backaddress and the subject (visible with the `backaddress = underlined` and `subject = underlined` options). I know I can change the color of the `fromrule` with `setkomafont{fromrule}{color{red}}`.

When I use `setkomafont{backaddress}{color{red}}` only the address’s color changes, but the line stays black. With `setkomafont{subject}{color{red}}`, as expected, the whole subject turns red, but I only want the line below the subject to change.

And I would also like to adapt the thickness of the lines.

Thanks a lot for the help!

## OpenSSL | SelfSigned CA certificate | Subject key identifier with 60 bit hash

I am creating a self signed CA certificate with the subject key identifier of 60 bit hash value.
As per the RFC there are two methods of creating the SKI (1) The keyIdentifier is composed of the 160-bit SHA-1 hash of the value of the BIT STRING subjectPublicKey (excluding the tag, length, and number of unused bits).
(2) The keyIdentifier is composed of a four bit type field with the value 0100 followed by the least significant 60 bits of the SHA-1 hash of the value of the BIT STRING subjectPublicKey (excluding the tag, length, and number of unused bit string bits).
I want to use the second method to create the CA certificate in OpenSSL. Is there any way to do it?

## Subject is empty when try to send few variants of message

When I try to send two or more variants of messages, sending is paused and I get an error in log: subject is empty, although I have set it. But if I send simple message with one variants, message will send successfully without any errors and the subject is correct. I have “Set Page Title” rendering in presentation details.

Sitecore 8.2 update 7, Exm 3.5

``````ERROR Message sending error: System.AggregateException: One or more errors occurred. ---> System.ArgumentException: Empty strings are not allowed.
Parameter name: message.Subject
at Sitecore.Diagnostics.Assert.ArgumentNotNullOrEmpty(String argument, String argumentName)
at Sitecore.EDS.Core.Net.Smtp.MessageTransport`1..ctor(EmailMessage message)
at Sitecore.EDS.Providers.CustomSmtp.DispatchProvider.d__3.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at Sitecore.EDS.Core.Dispatch.DispatchProviderBase.d__5.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at Sitecore.EDS.Core.Dispatch.DispatchManager.d__6.MoveNext()
--- End of inner exception stack trace ---
at Sitecore.EmailCampaign.Cm.Pipelines.SendEmail.SendEmail.Process(SendMessageArgs args)
at (Object , Object )
at Sitecore.Pipelines.CorePipeline.Run(PipelineArgs args)
at Sitecore.Pipelines.DefaultCorePipelineManager.Run(String pipelineName, PipelineArgs args, String pipelineDomain, Boolean failIfNotExists)
at Sitecore.Pipelines.DefaultCorePipelineManager.Run(String pipelineName, PipelineArgs args, String pipelineDomain)
at Sitecore.Modules.EmailCampaign.Core.PipelineHelper.RunPipeline(String pipelineName, PipelineArgs args)
---> (Inner Exception #0) System.ArgumentException: Empty strings are not allowed.
Parameter name: message.Subject
at Sitecore.Diagnostics.Assert.ArgumentNotNullOrEmpty(String argument, String
argumentName)
at Sitecore.EDS.Core.Net.Smtp.MessageTransport`1..ctor(EmailMessage message)
at Sitecore.EDS.Providers.CustomSmtp.DispatchProvider.d__3.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at Sitecore.EDS.Core.Dispatch.DispatchProviderBase.d__5.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at Sitecore.EDS.Core.Dispatch.DispatchManager.d__6.MoveNext()<---
``````

## “Have you ever wanted for someone to teach you this subject in layman terms?” is grammatically correct?

May be it should be phrased differently?

• Have you ever wanted someone to teach you this subject in layman
terms?
• Did you ever wish someone could teach you this subject in layman terms?
• Do you want someone to teach you this subject in layman terms?

What would be grammatically correct the “most”?

## Why is there no Subject-Auxilliary inversion in Subject questions?

In questions where a wh-element refers to the object, we can observe SAI (Subject-Auxilliary inversion).

[Who did [you see]]?

As far as I’m aware, C-head has a [+Q] feature and it’s occupied by a null bound morpheme that needs a verb to attach to. Since V-to-C is impossible (for the previous step, V-to-I is illicit as well) in English, only auxiliaries have the power to raise to C.

But why is it so that wh-elements pertaining to the subject of the clause do not trigger SAI? The C-head still has the [+Q] feature and do-support is available in English if there is no other auxilliary present.

[Who [read this book]]?

## How to control subject’s response bias in 2-interval force choice task

I am using a two-interval force choice (2IFC) task to estimate detection threshold and choose an appropriate signal level for my following experiment, by estimating sensitivity ($$d’$$) for each signal level.

Since it is a 2IFC task with signal equally distributed on two intervals, I expect close-to-zero response bias and plan to estimate $$d’$$ directly from proportion correct. After running experiment on 3 subjects (one complete 2500 trials, two complete 1250 trials), two of them show slight response bias (ratio of response to interval 1 vs. 2 is 0.91 and 1.12), but one subject shows large response bias (ratio of response to interval 1 vs. 2 is 0.53).

Here is my question:

1. For the subject with large response bias, is it still valid to estimate $$d’$$ from proportion correct anymore? And is it still valid to estimate $$d’$$ directly from hit rate and false-alarm rate?

2. If I hope to let this subject to continue participating in this experiment, how should I let him/her to lower response bias? Directly telling him/her “You have pressed key #1 too often, press key #2 more when you are not sure”? Is it going to interfere the experiment?

3. For future naÃ¯ve participants, should I let them know do not bias toward one response too much before the start of experiment, or should I tell them only when they have made too much bias? If the latter case, how much bias is considered to be “too much”?