Barcode how many outlets can you put on a 14-2 Wire
In my rebuilding project I have counted 18 outlets and lights on one bedroom circuit that travels through 3 rooms. Is that ok?
"Items collection must be empty before using ItemsSource." I'm trying to get images to display in a WPF ListView styled like a WrapPanel as described in this old ATC Avalon Team article: .    When I try to populate the ListView with a LINQ-to-Entities queried collection of ADO.NET Entity Framework objects I get the following exception:  Exception     Items collection must be empty before   using ItemsSource.   My code&hellip;  Visual Basic  Private Sub Window1_Loaded(...) Handles MyBase.Loaded     ListViewImages.ItemsSource = From g In db.Graphic _                                  Order By g.DateAdded Ascending _                                  Select g End Sub   XAML  &lt;ListView Name="ListViewImages"           SelectionMode="Single"           ItemsSource="{Binding}"&gt;     &lt;local:ImageView /&gt; &lt;/ListView&gt;   I put a breakpoint on that line.  ListViewImages.ItemsSource is Nothing just before the LINQ assignment. Ordered Pair Formal Definition I understand what an ordered pair is, but I'm having trouble the formal Kuratowski definition which says that $\langle a,b \rangle = \{\{a\},\{a,b\}\}$. What about this definition imposes order on the pair? Why $x^{p^n}-x+1$ is irreducible in ${\mathbb{F}_p}$ only when $n=1$ or $n=p=2$ I have a question, I think it concerns with field theory.     Why the polynomial $$x^{p^n}-x+1$$ is irreducible in ${\mathbb{F}_p}$ only when $n=1$ or $n=p=2$?   Thanks in advance. It bothers me for several days. Today I upgraded from Ubuntu 12.04 to Ubuntu 13.10. I am not able to watch any videos in Amazon Prime Instant Video. I am getting this message:   An error occurred and your player could not be updated.   This is likely because your Flash Player or Browser needs to be updated. This update is required to play back this video. How to find $ \int_0^\infty \dfrac x{1+e^x}\ dx$ Over time, I've noticed an increasing practice among moderators of the smaller sites (i.e. not in the Trilogy) to move extended comment chains to chat, just because they're too long. Is this a good idea? In the past, I've taken the position on many occasions that I believe that comments serve two purposes only: clarification, and asking for clarification.  I take this position because as a mod I want the freedom to purge a comment trail that is clearly running off the rails without having to argue with anyone about politeness definitions. But that's not the same thing as two pedantic C++ language lawyers debating the finer points of &quot;undefined behavior.&quot;  I give wide latitude to such discussions, as long as the participants don't start throwing spears, because I believe they are instructive. The SE software even has accommodations for this.  Long comment chains are automatically collapsed, so as not to disrupt the Q&amp;A format of the post.  And moving a comment chain to chat is not even a move, really; to do an actual move, you have to perform the conversion, and then delete all of the copied comments from the post. Here is a recent example:  and it's accompanying . What I find amusing is that the OP's detailed POV about the term, where he floats a theory about why everyone thinks that &quot;bugged&quot; is not a thing (that conversation took place in the comments, and is now safely sequestered in the chat room) gets to stay prominently featured in his question, at the very top of the post. Now you could argue that the chat room is a better environment to have these discussions anyway, and you'd be right.  I could argue that if we're going to do that, then why not just automatically convert long discussions to chat rooms? The problem is not so much where the comments reside.  I don't understand why mods are taking it on themselves to fix something that isn't hurting the site (at least in my opinion).  In addition, every time I see this happen, the participants in the conversation immediately lose interest in it.  The only comment that was posted in that room after all the comments were moved is most likely this one:  It wouldn't surprise me if the folks using &quot;bugged&quot; to refer to a certain software quality are the same folks who refer to their programs as &quot;codes&quot; and who believe textspeak is the pinnacle of modern English.  Which nobody will ever see. :) Some mods are really aggressive about this.  I discussed this with a mod on Physics, and he told me that they routinely move discussions when they think they might run off the rails. Representation of electromagnetic wave? In Representation of electromagnetic waves we show both electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other and having zero magnitude at one point and maximum at other point. This representation and understanding of EM waves violating law of conservation of energy... Singular verb after two noun phrases joined by "and" that can be thought of as a single thing Here the lower box dimension and the upper box dimension are exactly what Falconer talks about in his book "Fractal Geometry". I already know that the upper box dimension is finitely stable since $N_\delta(A\cup B)\le N_\delta (A)+N_\delta(B)$, where $N_\delta(A)$ is defined as usual, and Falconer gives an example to show the box dimension may not be countably stable. (We know that, however, the Hausdorff dimension is countably stable).  But now I want to find the example to show the lower box dimension may not even be finitely stable.It seems that we can use von Koch curve to illustrate this, but what is the explicit explanation for this? Since the lower box dimension is monotonic, we need to find set A and B and show that   $\underline{\dim}_B(A\cup B)&gt;\max\{\underline{\dim}_B(A),\underline{\dim}_B(B)\}$. This problem is from Discrete Mathematics and its Applications  My question is on 9b. I know that the sign represents an element is a member of. (from book)  I know that the O with a slash across it is the empty set which &quot;is a special set that has no elements&quot;. From , I got that the empty set is a subset of all sets, meaning that every member of the empty set(nothing) is also a member of any other set. Based on all of this, for 9b, would {0} contain the empty set because it fundamentally has the elements that consist of the empty set(nothing) or does it physically have to have the empty set? Revision history suggests that I edited the post body, whereas I didn't I was doing some re-tagging and I noticed that the automatically generated revision comment says that I edited the post body where I only edited the tags. How to replace the_post_thumbnail template tag and show the first inside the post image instead What happened to the “‑est” and “‑eth” verb suffixes in English? What happened to them, and how were they once used? Straining my mind to sound archaic, I came up with the following:     Dost thou thinkest thou can escape thy sins?   and     Bringeth me mine armor and favorite sword.   I’d like to use these suffixes intelligently, so my questions are: how are ‑est and ‑eth properly appellated in conjugations, and  when and why did they disappear? I have an element that already has a class: &lt;div class=&quot;someclass&quot;&gt;     &lt;img ... id=&quot;image1&quot; name=&quot;image1&quot; /&gt; &lt;/div&gt;  Now, I want to create a JavaScript function that will add a class to the div (not replace, but add). How can I do that? I'm trying to include a file with a specific shape (cup) into another TikZ image, in order to use the cup as a "stamp" to draw more complex figure. The file is located in /usr/share/tikzit/shapes/cap.tikz  \documentclass{article} \usepackage[svgnames]{xcolor} \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{decorations.markings} \usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric} \pagestyle{empty}  \pgfdeclarelayer{edgelayer} \pgfdeclarelayer{nodelayer} \pgfsetlayers{edgelayer,nodelayer,main}  \tikzstyle{none}=[inner sep=0pt] \tikzstyle{node1}=[cap,fill=White,draw=Black]  \tikzstyle{simple}=[-,draw=Black,line width=2.000] \tikzstyle{arrow}=[-,draw=Black,postaction={decorate},decoration={markings,mark=at position .5 with {\arrow{&gt;}}},line width=2.000] \tikzstyle{tick}=[-,draw=Black,postaction={decorate},decoration={markings,mark=at position .5 with {\draw (0,-0.1) -- (0,0.1);}},line width=2.000]  \usepackage[graphics,tightpage,active]{preview} \PreviewEnvironment{tikzpicture} \newlength{\imagewidth} \newlength{\imagescale}  \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture}     \begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}         \node [style=node1] (0) at (-2.5, 1.5) {};     \end{pgfonlayer} \end{tikzpicture}  \end{document}   The code i want to include is the following:  \begin{tikzpicture}         \path [use as bounding box] (-2,-2) rectangle (2,2);         \begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}                 \node [style=none] (0) at (0, 0.75) {};                 \node [style=none] (1) at (-0.5, 0) {};                 \node [style=none] (2) at (0.5, 0) {};         \end{pgfonlayer}         \begin{pgfonlayer}{edgelayer}                 \draw [in=0, out=90] (2.center) to (0.center);                 \draw [in=270, out=-90, looseness=0.75] (1.center) to (2.center);                 \draw [in=90, out=180] (0.center) to (1.center);         \end{pgfonlayer} \end{tikzpicture}   But it seems I miss how to specify the directory of cup. I get this error:     Package pgfkeys Error: The key '/tikz/cap' requires a value. I am   going to ignore this key.   It seems like I have to deal with tikzstyle or pgfkey, but I don't know how to specify an external file. I want to write batch or something, that will write output of top into a file on login.  I did top &gt;&gt; output-file, but it contains some strange character!  Can somebody give a simple tutorial about how to write batch file in Linux? What is the best way to handle a lot of misused tags? So today I noticed a question that had the  tag. As the question was not about JSFiddle, and only included a link to the site, I thought somebody has just created this for the sake of it. So I decided the best action would be to remove it, and try to stop it from getting out of control.  But then I searched (clicked the tag) for other questions that used it and I was amayonaised to see over 500 questions had the very same tag! Most of which were incorrectly tagged. So I cleaned up a couple and then quickly got bored.  So I am wondering, aside from going through them all by myself, is there a more efficient way?  I think it would be a great idea if there was some feature (probably an admin feature) that allowed a new tag queue to be added to the review list. I think this could work well as follows:   Somebody brings up the problematic tag in question (e.g. Me on here) An admin reviews my concern, and decides that the tag is very misused That admin adds the tag for review in a (temporary) new review queue. All users that can review can then go through existing tags, and vote for "No action" or "Remove tag" The world becomes a slightly better place   ...or not?    By the way, I tried to add some new tags to this post but I don't have the rep. So if someone could create them for me that would be swell: "musefan", "today", "sunny-spells", "pointless-tags" Followup to "".  It is argued that even a tiny residual charge would result in huge amounts of electricity in bulk matter, everything would be different, etc. I do not find that a convincing answer: suppose $n$ protons plus $n+1$ electrons are neutral. Why wouldn't we also expect there to be $n$ protons to every $n+1$ electrons? That is, there is no bulk matter problem if every $n$'th atom is a negative ion (for hydrogen).  Now, what empirical lower bound can we give for $n$ in that kind of scenario? Rootspaces are $\mathop{ad}$ nilpotent Spaces in which "$A \cap K$ is closed for all compact $K$" implies "$A$ is closed." Let $X$ denote a topological space. For any $A \subseteq X$, consider two possible conditions on $A$.   $A$ is closed $A \cap K$ is closed, for all compact $K \subseteq X$.   If $X$ is Hausdorff, then clearly (1) implies (2). If $X$ is metrizable, then the converse holds; see .     Questions.         What are some Hausdorff topological spaces in which (2) does not   imply (1)?   For Hausdorff topological spaces: what weaker conditions than metrizability are known to imply that (2) implies (1)? Are there any interesting characterizations of those Hausdorff spaces in which (2) implies (1)?