I am an undergraduate pure maths major looking to attend graduate school in pure mathematics.  At my first college, I had a fairly traumatic first semester that led to, among other things, a C grade in Calculus I.  Throughout the next two semesters, I received A grades in all of my math classes, and transferred schools (so that the Calculus I grade in my older school still shows up on a transcript, but it does not factor in my cumulative GPA at my new school). This includes A grades in upper division analysis and algebra. My current cumulative GPA at my new school is 3.85.   How will my poor grade in Calculus I reflect on my admissions into top universities for graduate school?  Thank you.
I'm currently an M. Phil student in Math and I failed a course last semester because I was not able to hand in a home work assignment (which was worth 40% of my grade) on time (I was 30 minutes late).   Apart from that I'd say I'm a fairly decent student, I got an upper second class honours bachelors degree, I have a B+ and A's for all my other courses in my current programme and I'm almost finished with my first paper to be published.   I've however been deeply worried about this failure as it would reflect poorly on my transcript if I were to apply to a Ph.D or another Master's programme.   Will my failing grade affect my chances of getting into a competitive programme or greatly lower my chances of getting a scholarship?
Which is more idiomatic in a bash script: `|| true` or `|| :`? I don't do terribly much shell scripting, so I was a little surprised when I was reading  and I saw the syntax they used in this documentation:     A non-zero return from the command in any submodule causes the processing to terminate. This can be overridden by adding || : to the end of the command.   I had to look up that || : was a shorthand for forcing a command to exit successfully.  Anytime I've had to make a command exit successfully, I used || true.  Is || : considered to be more idiomatic? Why cannot this question with an open bounty be closed? User’s Guide vs Users’ Guide I’ve been looking over what has been posted regarding the use of ’s.   I used to be a Technical Writer (years ago). The title of one of our training documents was Users’ Guide.  Once, a coworker said every time he saw that title he expected users to start coming.    Never made any sense to me, but I have to admit that the majority of us didn't understand the use of s’ in place of ’s.  What is the difference? How to check the maximum number of allowed connections to an Oracle database? Rewrite Sharepoint URL (Sharepoint 2013) I'd like to rewrite all my site urls in the way the the user can't figure out the exact name of the the page his viewing. let's say that my site is "www.justarandomsite.com"  and may page is "page.aspx" I' like to have instead of "www.justarandomsite.com/pages/page.aspx" sothing like this: "www.justarandomsite.com/skdhfjksdgfjksdgfjdsgvdjhsgfjdsdsjfgkdsjgfkdsgfjdsgfjkdsg" I'm new to LaTeX and I'm trying to figure out how to correctly format a proof. Can someone show me a basic template for how to do this?   The part I am having the most trouble with is creating new columns and customizing alignment... for instance, how do I add a right-aligned annotation (i.e. by distributive property) to a line of this sample proof? Should I use eqnarray* or is there a better option?  \begin{proof}   Let $t,u \in \mathbb{R}$ where $t=xy$ and $u=zw$. So,   \begin{eqnarray*}     4xyzw &amp;=&amp; 2\cdot2tu \\     &amp;\le&amp; 2\cdot(t^2+u^2) \\     &amp;=&amp; 2\cdot((xy)^2+(zw)^2) \\     &amp;=&amp; 2\cdot(x^2y^2+z^2w^2) \\     &amp;=&amp; 2x^2y^2+2z^2w^2 \\     &amp;\le&amp; ((x^2)^2+(y^2)^2)+((z^2)^2)+(w^2)^2) \\     &amp;=&amp; x^4+y^4+z^4+w^4   \end{eqnarray*} \end{proof} Proving that $\arctan(x)+\arctan(1/x)=\pm \pi/2$, could this line of reasoning possibly be correct? Problem:  $F = \frac{(G m_1 m_2)}{r^2}$  An object of unknown mass is placed directly between the Earth and the Moon such that the forces of gravity acting on the object are equal from both the Earth and the Moon. The distance from the Moon to the object is exactly one-tenth of the distance from the Moon to Earth. Using the above formula, determine the distance from the Moon to the Earth.  Given is:  The factor $G≈6.67∙10−11\mathbf{N(\frac{m^2}{kg^2})}$ is a universal constant.  Mass of Earth $≈5.972∙10^{24}\mathbf{kg}$   Mass of the Moon as $≈7.348∙10^{22}\mathbf{kg}$  Mass of unknown object = $m$  My solution:  $F = \frac{(6.67 *10^-11) m (7.348*10^{24})}{R^2}$  $F = \frac{(6.67 *10^-11) (5.92* 10^22) m}{10R^2}$  As gravitational force acting on the object is equal   $\frac{(5.92\cdot 10^22)}{100r^2} = \frac{(7.348*10^{24})}{r^2}$  $R = 1.24 \cdot 10^4 KM$  Is this a viable solution to the problem? Please provide feedback. Thank you! Posting and answering questions you have already found the answer to After the recent "Look and Feel" Apple vs Samsung lawsuits, I've been wondering to what extent this might affect websites/webapps that offer functionality similar to other existing sites.  So what exactly would one have to be wary of to make sure they don't step on the toes of a big corporation?  I could see carbon copying a companies website/app (especially if it's a very distinctive product) being a bad practice that could get you some backlash, especially blatantly ripping off iconic terminology, but how similar is too similar?  Does the ten-foot rule apply to the web?     “If a reasonable person could not, at ten feet, tell the difference between two competitive products, then there was cause to believe an infringement was occurring.”   Or is there a separate legal precedent associated with the web?  And then where does feel, which is essentially the common term for UX, come in.  Can you patent the way a website "feels", as in the flow, organization and functionality associated.  I understand that you can't patent basic elements like radio buttons, but what about the layout and look of a large number of those elements used in combination to complete a certain action/s?    I know that is still a bit of a Sword of Damocles for online retailers.  Where is the line drawn for website/webapp copyright infringement?  Or is there even a line drawn yet? What is the standard way to add N seconds to datetime.time in Python? Given a datetime.time value in Python, is there a standard way to add an integer number of seconds to it, so that 11:34:59 + 3 = 11:35:02, for example?  These obvious ideas don't work:  &gt;&gt;&gt; datetime.time(11, 34, 59) + 3 TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'datetime.time' and 'int' &gt;&gt;&gt; datetime.time(11, 34, 59) + datetime.timedelta(0, 3) TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'datetime.time' and 'datetime.timedelta' &gt;&gt;&gt; datetime.time(11, 34, 59) + datetime.time(0, 0, 3) TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'datetime.time' and 'datetime.time'   In the end I have written functions like this:  def add_secs_to_time(timeval, secs_to_add):     secs = timeval.hour * 3600 + timeval.minute * 60 + timeval.second     secs += secs_to_add     return datetime.time(secs // 3600, (secs % 3600) // 60, secs % 60)   I can't help thinking that I'm missing an easier way to do this though.  Related When trying to execute a symbolic link which points to an exe file (on Windows 7), the "Open with" windows appears. When renaming it to a ".exe" file, it says "The specified path does not exist. Check the path, and then try again.".  Symlinks to other destinations seem to work fine.  So is there any way to execute a symlink?  EDIT: In the command prompt, I execute the following and the MyProgram.exe runs both times.  However, if I double-click on the symbolic link in Windows Explorer it fails with the above error message.  C:\Temp&gt;mklink SomeProgram.exe MyProgram.exe symbolic link created for Backup.exe &lt;&lt;===&gt;&gt; Backup-1.0.1.exe  C:\Temp&gt;SomeProgram.exe  C:\Temp&gt;del SomeProgram.exe  C:\Temp&gt;mklink SomeProgram.exe C:\Temp\MyProgram.exe symbolic link created for Backup.exe &lt;&lt;===&gt;&gt; C:\Temp\Backup-1.0.1.exe  C:\Temp&gt;SomeProgram.exe I was looking at  on why  and emission lines don't cancel out:      An experiment shining light on the material and looking at the   reflected spectrum will see absorption lines at those frequencies,   because the relaxation of the excited electrons will emit back   radiation all around randomly, whereas the reflected spectrum is at a   specific angle.   However it is not totally convincing to me. The photons that get emitted towards the center of the Sun (by the electrons in higher energy states that absorbed a photon earlier) would get absorbed again when they hit a different electron (and then re-emitted) and would eventually make it out. So why don't absorption and emission lines cancel out in our Sun? Why does Yoda speak the way he does? Invisible software updates list in Software Updater Verify my proof of the irrationality of $\sqrt{6}$. Is there any difference between Frequentist and Bayesian on the definition of Likelihood? Some sources say likelihood function is not conditional probability, some say it is. This is very confusing to me.  According to most sources I have seen, the likelihood of a distribution with parameter $\theta$, should be a product of probability mass functions given $n$ samples of $x_i$:  $$L(\theta) = L(x_1,x_2,...,x_n;\theta) = \prod_{i=1}^n p(x_i;\theta)$$  For example in Logistic Regression, we use an optimization algorithm to maximize the likelihood function (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) to obtain the optimal parameters and therefore the final LR model. Given the $n$ training samples, which we assume to be independent from each other, we want to maximize the product of probabilities (or the joint probability mass functions). This seems quite obvious to me.  According to , "likelihood is not a probability and it is not a conditional probability". It also mentioned, "likelihood is a conditional probability only in Bayesian understanding of likelihood, i.e., if you assume that $\theta$ is a random variable."  I read about the different perspectives of treating a learning problem between frequentist and Bayesian.   According to a source, for Bayesian inference, we have a priori $P(\theta)$, likelihood $P(X|\theta)$, and we want to obtain the posterior $P(\theta|X)$, using Bayesian theorem:  $$P(\theta|X)=\dfrac{P(X|\theta) \times P(\theta)}{P(X)}$$   I'm not familiar with Bayesian Inference. How come $P(X|\theta)$ which is the distribution of the observed data conditional on its parameters, is also termed the likelihood? In , it says sometimes it is written $L(\theta|X)=p(X|\theta)$. What does this mean?  is there a difference between Frequentist and Bayesian's definitions on likelihood??  Thanks.    EDIT:  There are different ways of interpreting Bayes' theorem - Bayesian interpretation and Frequentist interpretation (See: ). Can I change my flight dates after I get my Schengen visa? How to pipe the result of 'date' command to 'mv' command I want to rename my file to the current timestamp.I know how to get the current timestamp("date +%s") but how can I pipe it to 'mv' command? mysterious error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pdfstartlink I ran into the "mysterious"  \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pdfstartlink   error.  According to , "this happens when hyperref is used under pdftex and a citation splits across a page boundary".  The given solution is to manual fix the citation to not split across the page boundary.  However, this workaround isn't feasible for me, as the documents are automatically generated on a server with no user interaction.  Is there any solution to the problem known, perhaps an experimental hyperref action or a patch to pdftex?  (Probably, one could use luatex to solve the problem, but for other reasons, luatex is not an option in this project.)  MWE:  \documentclass[%draft               ]{article} \usepackage{hyperref} \setlength{\textwidth}{3cm} \setlength{\textheight}{3cm}  \begin{document} Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna \href{http://www.tug.org/errors}{aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua.} \end{document}