When I scan WiFi with Wireless Diagnostics tool on Mac OS X (Window -> Utilities -> Scan WiFi), it shows a lot of information about WiFi routers around me.   I realize that some routers have "JP" in their country fields even though I am in US and the most routers shows "US" in that field.   Is there anybody can tell why some routers have "JP" and what is the meaning of "country" field?
I have a NetGear WGR614 wireless router.  There is a 'region' setting in the wireless options.  I'm wondering what technical purpose of this setting is?  The admin help states:     It may not be legal to operate the router in a region other than the region shown here.    Which makes me wonder if it could be adjusting it's max power output based on regional radio laws?
Test statistic for follow up procedure (stepwise step down) of Kruskal Wallis When conducting a Kruskall Wallis test, it is possible to follow up the procedure with a post hoc test, looking for homogeneous subsets. My question is which statistic is used to perform this procedure (e.g., is it Chi-Square, z, or the original H)? Conclusively stop wake timers from waking Windows 10 desktop What is the "exposure triangle"? Definition of electric charge and proper explanation Merge two data frames while keeping the original row order Permutation with prime order, fixed point Let $M$ be a finite set and $\varphi$ a permutation of this set with prime order $q$. How do I show that $\varphi$ has a fixed point if $q$ is not a divisor of $|M|$? I am struggling to create the matrix in the picture attached using Latex. I have tried using commands like \hline but the matrix ends up looking messy as the line goes all the way across.    Edit: To clarify, I am looking for each block to have a square outline. How do I set up SSH so I don't have to type my password? How do I set up SSH so I don't have to type my password when connecting to a host? Let $a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}^*_+$, $abc=1$.  How can i show that $\left(a-1+\frac{1}b\right)\left(b-1+\frac{1}c\right)\left(c-1+\frac{1}a\right)\leq1$ ?  I got $\left(ab-b+1\right)\left(bc-c+1\right)\left(ca-a+1\right)\leq abc=1$, but i can't go any further ...  If i expand it :   $2-ab-\frac{b}a-c-ac-\frac{a}c-b+2a+\frac{2}a-bc-\frac{c}b-a+2b+\frac{2}b+2c+\frac{2}c-4$  Which gives using $c=\frac{1}{ab}$ :   $5ab-\frac{b}a-\frac{1}{ab}-a^2b+\frac{1}a+b+\frac{1}b-2$ Why is an untranslated string not showing up? In my module I have some custom strings. I use these in the t() function. When I go to admin/config/regional/translate/translate and filter the untranslated strings my custom strings do not show here.  What could be going wrong? ASP.NET Website's BIN directory and references Why quantum mechanics? Imagine you're teaching a first course on quantum mechanics in which your students are well-versed in classical mechanics, but have never seen any quantum before.  How would you motivate the subject and convince your students that in fact classical mechanics cannot explain the real world and that quantum mechanics, given your knowledge of classical mechanics, is the most obvious alternative to try?  If you sit down and think about it, the idea that the state of a system, instead of being specified by the finitely many particles' position and momentum, is now described by an element of some abstract (rigged) Hilbert space and that the observables correspond to self-adjoint operators on the space of states is not at all obvious.  Why should this be the case, or at least, why might we expect this to be the case?   Then there is the issue of measurement which is even more difficult to motivate.  In the usual formulation of quantum mechanics, we assume that, given a state $|\psi \rangle$ and an observable $A$, the probability of measuring a value between $a$ and $a+da$ is given by $|\langle a|\psi \rangle |^2da$ (and furthermore, if $a$ is not an eigenvalue of $A$, then the probability of measuring a value in this interval is $0$).  How would you convince your students that this had to be the case?  I have thought about this question of motivation for a couple of years now, and so far, the only answers I've come up with are incomplete, not entirely satisfactory, and seem to be much more non-trivial than I feel they should be.  So, what do you guys think?  Can you motivate the usual formulation of quantum mechanics using only classical mechanics and minimal appeal to experimental results?  Note that, at some point, you will have to make reference to experiment.  After all, this is the reason why we needed to develop quantum mechanics.  In principle, we could just say "The Born Rule is true because its experimentally verified.", but I find this particularly unsatisfying.  I think we can do better.  Thus, I would ask that when you do invoke the results of an experiment, you do so to only justify fundamental truths, by which I mean something that can not itself just be explained in terms of more theory.  You might say that my conjecture is that the Born Rule is not a fundamental truth in this sense, but can instead be explained by more fundamental theory, which itself is justified via experiment.  Edit:  To clarify, I will try to make use of a much simpler example.  In an ideal gas, if you fix the volume, then the temperature is proportional to pressure.  So we may ask "Why?".  You could say "Well, because experiment.", or alternatively you could say "It is a trivial corollary of the ideal gas law.".  If you choose the latter, you can then ask why that is true.  Once again, you can just say "Because experiment." or you could try to prove it using more fundamental physical truths (using the kinetic theory of gases, for example).  The objective, then, is to come up with the most fundamental physical truths, prove everything else we know in terms of those, and then verify the fundamental physical truths via experiment.  And in this particular case, the objective is to do this with quantum mechanics. ETS() function, how to avoid forecast not in line with historical data? I am working on an alogorithm in R to automatize a monthly forecast calculation. I am using, among others, the ets() function from the forecast package to calculate forecast. It is working very well.  Unfortunately, for some specific time series, the result I get is weird.  Please, find below the code i am using :  train_ts&lt;- ts(values, frequency=12) fit2&lt;-ets(train_ts, model="ZZZ", damped=TRUE, alpha=NULL, beta=NULL, gamma=NULL,              phi=NULL, additive.only=FALSE, lambda=TRUE,              lower=c(0.0001,0.0001,0.0001,0.8),upper=c(0.9999,0.9999,0.9999,0.98),              opt.crit=c("lik","amse","mse","sigma","mae"), nmse=3,              bounds=c("both","usual","admissible"), ic=c("aicc","aic","bic"),             restrict=TRUE)   ets &lt;- forecast(fit2,h=forecasthorizon,method ='ets')      Please, you will find below the concerned history data set :   values &lt;- c(27, 27, 7, 24, 39, 40, 24, 45, 36, 37, 31, 47, 16, 24, 6, 21,  35, 36, 21, 40, 32, 33, 27, 42, 14, 21, 5, 19, 31, 32, 19, 36,  29, 29, 24, 42, 15, 24, 21)   Here, on the graph, you will see the historical data (black), the fitted value (green) and the forecast(blue). The forecast is definitely not in lines with the fitted value.  Do you have any idea on how to "bound" the forecat to be "in line" with the historical sales? When should I start the DLC? I'm late to the Borderlands 2 party, but I picked up the Season Pass for a steal.  I'm still only in the teens as far as my level is concerned.  However, there are now 3 DLC packs out and I've got them all installed.  Sometimes it's tempting to go away from the main quest and just jump into something new and potentially interesting.  In BL1, I played through the DLC between playthroughs of the game, treating the add-ons like continuations of the game post-final-boss.  I'm not sure if this is a good idea in BL2 (or even if it was smart in BL1, honestly...)  Is there a recommended level for starting the DLCs?  Will I encounter enemies that are too hard if I go early, or too easy if I go late?  Are there some weapons or quest rewards that I really can't get the most of until after I'm a certain level? I want to open a file for reading, the C++ way. I need to be able to do it for:   text files, which would involve some sort of read line function. binary files, which would provide a way to read raw data into a char* buffer. Is there a known mathematical equation to find the nth prime? I've solved for it making a computer program, but was wondering there was a mathematical equation that you could use to solve for the nth prime? What are the odd of a single coin toss after many consecutive ones? I have little knowledge of probability and have recently been thinking of a math problem I am sure you guys could answer  If for example I tossed a coin ten times and got all heads, would the odds of the next coin toss beeing heads be 50 50 or s very low as the odds of getting 11 in a row is tiny?   Thanks Install python packages for specific python version I understand that in Ubuntu 14.04, you have access to both python 2.7.6 and python 3.4.0. When getting python packages through the command line, how do I make sure that I am installing packages meant for python 2.7.6 and not for python 3.4.0? According to two questions  and  asked on this site earlier there exists a nice relation:  $$\frac1{n!} \left(\int_{0}^t\mathrm dt \; f(t)\right)^n = \int_{0}^t\mathrm dt_1 \int_{0}^{t_1}\mathrm dt_2 \cdots \int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\mathrm dt_n\; f(t_1)\,f(t_2) \ldots f(t_n). $$  Unfrotunatly I am more interested in integrals of the form  $$\int_{0}^t\mathrm dt_1 \int_{0}^{t_1}\mathrm dt_2 \cdots \int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\mathrm dt_n\; f(t_n). $$  Can it be somehow brought to an unary integral?  All I have figured out by now is that  $$\int_{0}^t\mathrm dt_1 \int_{0}^{t_1}\mathrm dt_2 \cdots \int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\mathrm dt_n\; t_n^m = \frac{m!}{(m+n)!} t^{m+n} .$$ There is a statement that maximizing the likelihood is equivalent to minimizing the cross-entropy.  Are there any proof for this statement?