Usually when creating a new mesh, say a cylinder, you can pick the number of vertices.  This option does not appear to me anymore. How can I bring it back?
When you add a new object into the blender scene, normally on the tool shelf a window will become available where you can put in the objects size or number of vertices etc.  These options:   For what-ever reason, when I now add an object I am no longer seeing that area where I can alter the measurements. Currently I want to use the Spin function but I need to alter it but I have no way of effecting how the spin operates. Does anyone know what I have done or how to fix it?
Why do PBX systems use -48 V? It seems common that PBX and other telephone hardware use a positive-ground power supply, where the "hot" line is at -48v.  What's the reason for that? Extraneous solution from substituting in equations I came across this example of how you could end up with an extraneous solution but I was wondering how it arose. We have the equation: $$x^2+x+1=0 $$ Since x=0 does not satisfy the equation, you can divide by x on both sides which yields: $$x+1+\frac{1}{x}=0$$ which is equivalent to our first equation. From our first eqution we can conclude that: $$-x^2=x+1$$ We now substitute that into the second equation to get:$$x^2=\frac{1}{x}$$ which results in $$x^3=1$$ which is equivalent to our previous equation since x cannot be 0. However, one solution from our last equation is x=1, which is not a solution to our original equation. I have a vague idea that it may have to do with the fact that you get a cubic equation and you began with a quadratic, and that steps imply the following and not vice versa, but can you provide a very detailed answer as to why it arises? Can you please provide more examples? PHP "header (location)" inside IFRAME, to load in _top location? When to use icons vs. icons with text vs. just text links? Are there any rules on when to use icons vs. icons with text vs. just text links in a web application?  For example:    vs.   save  vs.  save    Extra question: Is  save -or- save  preferable? How can I prove the maximum number of edges? On my book it says that the maximum number of edges E, in a simply connected undirected unweighted graph $G(V,E)$ is $\dfrac{|V|(|V|-1)}{2}$.  How can I show that it is true? Thanks! Windows 10 Asks me to Enter a Password I am using Windows 10 Pro x64 on my personal laptop on which I have a single user account with no password. For some reason however, Windows 10 has started asking me to enter a password whenever I boot up my machine. All I have to do is press the button without entering anything, and I log in, but I would much rather skip this step in favor of an automatic sign-in. Why has this started happening only now? What can I do to stop this behavior? I've read a number of the helpful Q&amp;As on photons that mention the mass/mass-less issue. Do I understand correctly that the idea of mass-less (a rest mass of 0) may be just a convention to make the equations work?  From a layperson's view, it's difficult to understand how a particle of light (photon) can be mass-less. A physical object (everyday world-large or quantum-small) must have a mass. Yet, if my understanding is correct, the mass of a moving object/particle increases in proportion to its speed/velocity...so that at the speed of light, its mass would be infinite. A photon travels at the speed of light, but it obviously doesn't have infinite mass, right? Can someone formulate a practical explanation that can be understood by middle-school to high school kids? Much thanks for the help.    Wow--your answers to my original Q below clear up much of my confusion. I now have the daunting task of going over these nuggets and working up an equation-less (hopefully) explanation of the mass-less photon for non-physicist types.  Yes, from a layperson's view, it does seem remarkable that an existing piece of matter-- which has to be made of physical substance--could have zero mass at rest (though a photon is never at rest). It would be almost understandable if a piece of matter made of nothing had zero mass, but that  seems to be an oxymoron, and "nothing" would equate to nonexistent, right?  In case you might find it interesting: I'm working on a writing project that posits we inhabit a universe that consists of matter (physical stuff) only, and that the NON-physical (aka supernatural) does not (and cannot) exist. For instance, if a purported supernatural phenomenon is found to actually exist, then by definition, its existence is proof that it is mundane/natural. All it would take to disprove this premise is reliable proof that ONE supernatural event has occurred. Despite thousands of such claims, that's never yet happened.  Who else better than physicists to confirm my premise? However, I do wish the TV physicists would explain the terms they throw about, some of which mislead/confuse their lay viewers. Case in point: "The universe is made up of matter and energy" (without properly defining the term "energy" as a property of matter).  The result is that laypersons are left with the impression that energy must therefore be something apart from or independent of matter (ie, nonphysical). Their use of the term "pure energy" without specifying exactly what that means adds to the confusion. (Thanks to your replies on this forum, I now understand that "pure energy" refers to photon particles.) However, "psychics" and other charlatans take advantage of such confusion by hijacking terms like energy (as in "psychic energy"), frequencies, vibrations, etc to give perceived scientific legitimacy to their claims that a supernatural spirit world, etc., exists. As you may realize, the majority of people in the US (per 2009 Harris Poll) and around the world believe in the existence of nonphysical/supernatural stuff such as ghosts and spirits.  My purpose is to give laypersons the information they need to distinguish what's real from what's not.  Thanks so much for help...And, PLEASE, add any further comments you think might be helpful/insightful to better inform laypersons. I am having trouble with (a) and (b):  I evaluated (a) and I got that sun of the first three terms does not equal $\ln(5/8)$. I got that it is equal to $\ln(3/4) + \ln(2/3) + \ln(15/16)$ which is not equal to $\ln(5/8)$.  I am also having trouble with part (b). I cannot figure out how to calculate the math to cancel out the $(k+1)^2$ and turn it into $2(n  +1)$.  Any help would be amazing. How can I prove the inequality $|xy|\leq\frac{1}{2}(x^2+y^2)$  I have tried substitute $x,y$ for numbers, which turns out right, but I don't know how to reason here.  Thanks in advance! is one of those surprisingly clear results of mathematical calculations, for which I am inclined to think that some kind of intuitive understanding should or must be possible. However I don't know of any, do you?  *Independence of time $\leftrightarrow$ energy conservation. *Independence of position $\leftrightarrow$ momentum conservation. *Independence of direction $\leftrightarrow$ angular momentum conservation.  I know that the mathematics leads in the direction of Lie-algebra and such but I would like to discuss whether this theorem can be understood from a non-mathematical point of view also. Create 128 Barcodes within Excel Is there a way to create Barcodes (128 standard) on a Mac, preferably via an add-in?  I need it to create barcodes in Excel sheets (or moreso a friend of mine needs it).   I have tried all VBA macros and fonts I found on Google, but none give me a scannable result (usually there are weird characters like ó's mixed in). Does anybody have a working solution? Kernel of composition of linear transformations Let $f : U \to V$ and $g : V \to W$ be linear transformations on the vector spaces $U$, $V$, and $W$. Supposedly,  $$ \dim(\ker(g \circ f)) = \dim(\ker(f)) + \dim(\ker(g) \cap \operatorname{im}(f)). $$  How might I go about proving that?    (Attempt:) The $\dim(\ker(g)\cap\operatorname{im}(f))$ term suggests to me that I should define a vector space $V' = \ker(g) + \operatorname{im}(f)$ to invoke the theorem that  $$ \dim(V') = \dim(\ker(g)) + \dim(\operatorname{im}(f)) - \dim(\ker(g) \cap \operatorname{im}(f)), $$  but I don't really see where to go from there. Is there a reason, beyond historical reasons, that three phases has become the dominant number of phases?  I am aware of the advantages against one phase and two phase, namely the reduced amount of conductor needed, and that motors can provide torque when stalled (and less pulsation).  Is this solely due to diminishing returns, with only a small increase in smoothness of torque application, at the cost of increased complexity (increased number of wires (albeit of smaller CSA)).  To be clear, the phases are all evenly distributed, that is, five phases separated by 72 degrees. Is it okay to copy-paste answers from other questions? This one leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, but I defer to others as to whether it is appropriate or not. In , I wrote an answer to a question based on my experiences; it was upvoted and accepted, woo.  Now, today, in response to a different &#8212; but related &#8212; , someone has pasted my answer nearly verbatim (awkward English intact, I may add) as an answer.  Is that really okay? Is it a behavior that should be encouraged? Discouraged? Permanently mounting loop device I created a file   touch /datastore/virtual/pseudoblock   created a loop device with it  sudo losetup /dev/loop0 /datastore/virtual/pseudoblock   (although I got a warning about its size)  and then initialized it with random data  dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/loop0 bs=1M count=100   My questions are  a) why is it not displayed yet in my block devices' list?  NAME                     MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE  MOUNTPOINT sdb                        8:16   0 489.1G  0 disk   ├─sdb2                     8:18   0   488M  0 part  /boot ├─sdb3                     8:19   0 488.1G  0 part   │ └─sdb3_crypt           253:0    0 488.1G  0 crypt  │   ├─ubuntu--vg-root    253:1    0 472.2G  0 lvm   / │   └─ubuntu--vg-swap_1  253:2    0  15.9G  0 lvm   [SWAP] └─sdb1                     8:17   0   512M  0 part  /boot/efi sda                        8:0    0 931.5G  0 disk   └─sda1                     8:1    0 931.5G  0 part     └─sda1_crypt           253:3    0 931.5G  0 crypt      └─store--vg-store1tb 253:4    0 931.5G  0 lvm   /datastore   b) how can I permanently mount it via /etc/fstab since I cannot get its UUID?  $ blkid /dev/mapper/sdb3_crypt: UUID="fSHjbj-51K2-QfhI-G0Wb-o3lN-4pE1-BB4wCP" TYPE="LVM2_member" /dev/mapper/ubuntu--vg-root: UUID="9e452886-4d8g-fj54-854c-80bc171826e8" TYPE="ext4"   working on   $ lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description:    Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS Release:    16.04 Codename:   xenial   with  $ uname -a Linux pkara-pc01 4.15.0-42-generic #45~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Mon Nov 19 13:02:27 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I am trying to prove that any conjugate of $a$ has the same order as $a$.  Let $G$ be a group and let $a \in G$.  An element $b \in G$ is called a conjugate of $a$ if $b=xax^{-1}$.  My professor gave us a hint.  Prove $a^k=e$ iff $b^k=e$ for all $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ implies $o(a) = o(b)$.  My first move is to $b^k = (xax^{-1})^k = (x^{-1})^ka^kx^k = (x^{-1})^kex^k = (x^{-1})^kx^k=x^{-k+k}=x^0$  I am not sure that I am doing this correctly?  I am trying to get $b^k=e$.  However when I raise $(xax^{-1})^k$, I am not sure if I what I have done is correct?  I am kind of confused here. The story is basically told from an alien's point of view. Essentially they observed us from far off, deemed us as violent and a danger to the universe, and set course (asteroid or something) to kill us. They kept observing and saw all the art and beauty we created and realized we were actually not so bad, but by then they couldn't stop it. So it was sort of also an apology letter to Earth in the end.  First read it like a year ago online and I can't find any trace of it anymore, nor can I recall the site it was on. Anyone know what short story this is? Maven check for updated dependencies in repository "A friend of my father" vs. "a friend of my father's" — which one is right? Why? I have seen them both in my reference book, which is written by a native speaker. I wonder why there are two different phrases to describe the same meaning and am looking forward to some reasonable details to explain why this is so. Does a fighter's Action Surge trigger Extra Attack? Context  A player in my game will play a fighter with a greatsword. At 5th level he has Extra Attack and the option to use Action Surge. PHB p.72 states:     Action Surge. Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one   additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus   action.      Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before   you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice   before a rest, but only once on the same turn.        Extra Attack. Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once,   whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.       The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in   this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.   Confusion  The questions and answers that I find on here deal with multi-classing or Two Weapon fighting specifically, which don't really give a clear yes or no on my question.  The way I read these two features is that when a fighter takes an Attack action, he gets the Extra Attack. After using Action Surge he gets the opportunity to take another Attack action, and with that another Extra Attack. This results in four attacks with the greatsword in one turn, which sounds amazing but also rather powerful. Is this correct, or am I missing something?