How do I make a Stack Exchange site without going through the whole Area 51 thing? I really want an answer for this since I don't know how to make an Stack Exchange site. I want to make one just for myself and my friends and my friends' friends. Is there any way I can do this? I saw something saying that you can make a Stack Exchange for free, but I don't know if that's true.
Is Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow available for private or internal use? Is the Stack Exchange engine that powers Stack Overflow available to download or install internally for an enterprise or company?  I think Stack Exchange's engine is very great and could be very cool to use for internal enterprise patterns and practices, like the engine of Wikipedia.
Azure Same Storage on VM How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions? Algorithm over 2 pages I am writing a few rather large pseudocode functions using algorithm and algorithmic, i.e. my code looks something like:  \begin{algorithm}                      \caption{Coolest Algorithm ever}           \label{findme}                           \begin{algorithmic} [1]                   % enter the algorithmic environment \REQUIRE    Here are a few variables \\             variable 2 \\             variable 3  \ENSURE     this is the output \\             output 2  \STATE $some cool code here$ \STATE $some cool code here$ \STATE $some cool code here$ \STATE $some cool code here$ \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm}   Unfortunately this code does not fit on one page and I am definitely not able to split it into some subfunctions or so (I already did that as far as possible).  So now I need to split up the algorithm into two pages, but I have no idea how.  The easiest way I can imagine is just to start a new algorithm on the new page, but this time letting the line counter start at line 35 or so instead of 1. But how can I do that?  Please not that there is already a similar question here on this site, but it deals with the package algorithmicx. One of the first things ever taught in a differential calculus class:   The derivative of $\sin x$ is $\cos x$. The derivative of $\cos x$ is $-\sin x$.   This leads to a rather neat (and convenient?) chain of derivatives:   sin(x) cos(x) -sin(x) -cos(x) sin(x) ...   An analysis of the shape of their graphs confirms some points; for example, when $\sin x$ is at a maximum, $\cos x$ is zero and moving downwards; when $\cos x$  is at a maximum, $\sin x$ is zero and moving upwards.  But these "matching points" only work for multiples of $\pi/4$.  Let us move back towards the original definition(s) of sine and cosine:  At the most basic level, $\sin x$ is defined as -- for a right triangle with internal angle $x$ -- the length of the side opposite of the angle divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle.  To generalize this to the domain of all real numbers, $\sin x$ was then defined as the Y-coordinate of a point on the unit circle that is an angle $x$ from the positive X-axis.  The definition of $\cos x$ was then made the same way, but with adj/hyp and the X-coordinate, as we all know.  Is there anything about this basic definition that allows someone to look at these definitions, alone, and think, "Hey, the derivative of the sine function with respect to angle is the cosine function!"  That is, from the unit circle definition alone.  Or, even more amazingly, the right triangle definition alone.  Ignoring graphical analysis of their plot.  In essence, I am asking, essentially, "Intuitively why is the derivative of the sine the cosine?" Can I open Microsoft Word and Excel files? Can I open Microsoft Word and Excel files with Ubuntu? Does Mathematica have a "MATLAB Builder" equivalent? drawing at least 90% of colors from urn with large populations What is the difference between image size and image quality? Passing Javascript variable to In the review page, it shows stats of recent reviewers. But it is showing wrong stats. Because today (on Monday) it shows week count 53 (on Meta Stack Overflow) which is impossible as there is a limit of 20 reviews per day.    PS: This bug   and . But the bug has occurred again. How to preserve detail when downscaling scanned photos? I'm mixing analog with digital photography — I tend to take better photos when I can't look at a small digital screen, unconsciously forcing me to take the picture before I shoot instead of checking afterwards if it succeeded. I also like the grain film gives me.  However, most shots aren't worth spending much time in the darkroom, and scanning them is a lot faster. I'm wondering how best to convert the film to digital.  Scanning at lower than maximum (non-interpolated) resolution of my image scanner tends to exaggerate the contrast of the grain and screw up the mid-tones because of that.1 On the other hand, the resulting size of the scans are major overkill in most cases (I don't print them at A0 size), so I want to downscale the pictures. However, the grain confuses most methods and results in loss of detail and/or loss of the characteristic grain. For example, bicubic sharper tends to result in a "bigger" grain than the original. Now, the best compromise I've found so far is simply using bilinear interpolation, but I doubt that this is the best method to preserve both overall details and the look of the grain.  In short: when processing the scanned negative, how do I "best" preserve both image quality and the characteristic look of the grain?   As Stan Rogers pointed out below, there's a difference between truly scanning the grain of the film, and scanning the "grainy" character of film at lower resolutions. This question is about the latter; Stan Rogers explains how to do the first.  I'm looking for alternatives to the standard Photoshop options to try out, and reasons for each. Is the fact that every film has a different grain characteristic a problem? Are customized advanced noise reduction methods perhaps an option?  1. I'm using a Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, using the software provided by Minolta.  As requested, here is a scanned picture with different resize methods. Just scanned this, scanning a B&amp;W negative to get better tonality range. I turned off grain dissolver, automatic dust and scratch removal, etc, for obvious reasons. On the right the pictures are upscaled again with Nearest Neighbor. I set the 8 bit scan to 16 bits before downscaling, assuming it reduces risks of banding if I choose to mess with curves, channel mixers, etc. No other modifications (usually I first retouch dust &amp; scratches, and in the end channel mix the picture to B&amp;W, then switch to 8 bits again). Recursively rename files and directories Which is the best way to install new hplip versions? Hplip is the software that drives most hp printers. Usually new printers are only supported in newer versions of the software. Canonical doesn't backport new versions packages to older Ubuntu versions, that means that newer drivers are not going to be available in the Software Center of older Ubuntu versions.  As an example yesterday I needed to hook a hp 1005p to a computer running 8.04. I was forced to install a newer hplip than the version available in the repositories. I installed it using the script from the hp page, but I'd like to know other alternatives.  Which is the best (technically, not the easiest) way to install it and why?. How to get perfect UV sphere Mercator projection? I'm trying to unwrap a UV Sphere and I can't seem to get a perfect  projection. What process should I follow to get a perfect UV unwrap that looks like the black grid lines in this image?: If we map every integer to a string that represents a rational number, and produce a number different from all the ones listed, we are essentially following Cantor's algorithm. But why does it not apply? Is it because we can't be certain that the number produced is a rational number? ibus Avro in Ubuntu 14.04 LTS Easiest way to prove that $2^{\aleph_0} = c$ $\aleph_0$ is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers, $\aleph_0 = |N|$. $c$ is the cardinality of the continuum, i.e. the set of real numbers $c = |R|$.  I know that $|P(A)| = 2^{|A|}$. This means that the cardinality of the power set of a set is 2 raised to the power of the cardinality of that set.  This basically means that to prove  $2^{\aleph_0} = c$, I need to prove $c = |P(N)|$. I've seen the Cantor diagonal argument, although I have no idea on how to use it to prove this.   Could anyone suggest ideas of the simplest way to prove that $2^{\aleph_0} = c$? Transpose/Unzip Function (inverse of zip)? I am trying to convince my friend that the integral of $0$ is $C$, where $C$ is an arbitrary constant. He can't seem to grasp this concept. Can you guys help me out here? He keeps saying it is $0$. Can anyone explain how one would convert one voltage range to another? I'm going to need to convert a range of -10 to +10 volts into a range of 0 to +5 volts. How would this be accomplished? Thanks!   Let me say  something more. Inside of a torpedo there are gyroscopes. This gyroscope give -10 volts when the torpedo have 180 degrees of deviation to the west and 10 volts when the deviation is to the east. This signal is DC, so i need to change this range a range: 0 to 5 v DC . Thanks