I'll be travelling to Europe from India and have a check-in baggage which has the normal number lock (like a 3-digit password) and also has the TSA lock. My entry would be in France and would return from Switzerland back to India.  I have never used TSA locks and DO NOT plan to use the TSA lock (just the number lock), but my question is does having the unused TSA lock pose any problems while travelling to Europe? I hope it does not cause any issues.
I understand if you travelling in or to the US, you can lock your luggage using the TSA Luggage Lock. (Immigration is still able to open your luggage using their own special keys)  How about Europe? Especially Heathrow + Charles de Gaulle?    If the TSA Lock is not acceptable in Europe, are there any other alternative precautions I could use instead?  (FYI, information about the )
Exactly half of the elements of $\mathcal{P}(A)$ are odd-sized I have dual boot configured with Windows 7 (32bit) and Ubuntu 12.04(64bit). I installed Ubuntu after windows, now my windows is corrupt due to some virus and I need to reinstall it. Currently when I start my PC, grub loader comes up and I need to select Ubuntu or Windows.   I was wondering how can I install windows again and still have my Ubuntu install? Is there a way to do this?  I do not want to install Ubuntu again and lose my settings and data there.   Thanks, Ketan A function $f: \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ satisfies equation $f(x+y)=f(x)f(y)$ for all $x,y\in \mathbb R $ Homeomorphism of the real line-Topology Are we discouraged from fixing typos and misspellings on Stack Exchange sites? I just attempted to fix a typo on a question on cooking.stackexchange.com and saw this     Oops! Your edit couldn't be submitted because:         Your edit summary must be at least 10 characters   This edit is less than 6 characters; surely more can be improved with your edit?      So, misspelled words have to just be left misspelled?  That could prevent the post from being found in a search. I stumbled upon a  with the following paragraph:     MBIE has launched an investigation into claims Chinese galvanised   steel coil imports have been dumped on the local market, causing   "material injury" to New Zealand industry, and the case will end up on   the table of newly appointed Commerce Minister Jacqui Dean.   I thought that sentence was grammatically wrong because the author should put the word "that" (as a conjunction) right after the word "claim". I don't see why the author could drop the conjunction. Is this a prevailing phenomenon in American or Australian English? Operator norm. Alternative definition I have 10 years of daily returns data for 28 different currencies. I wish to extract the first principal component, but rather than operate PCA on the whole 10 years, I want to rollapply a 2 year window, because the currencies' behaviours evolve and so I wish to reflect this. However I have a major problem, that is that both the princomp() and prcomp() functions will often jump from positive to negative loadings in adjacent PCA analyses (ie 1 day apart). Have a look at the loading chart for the EUR currency:    Clearly I can't use this because adjacent loadings will jump from positive to negative, so my series which uses them will be erroneous. Now take a look at the absolute value of the EUR currency loading:    The problem is of course that I still cannot use this because you can see from the top chart that the loading does go from negative to positive and back at times, a characteristic which I need to preserve.   Is there any way I can get around this problem? Can I force the eigenvector orientation to always be the same in adjacent PCAs?   By the way this problem also occurs with the FactoMineR PCA() function. The code for the rollapply is here:  rollapply(retmat, windowl, function(x) summary(princomp(x))$loadings[, 1], by.column = FALSE, align = "right") -&gt; princomproll Sort and display directory list alphabetically using opendir() in php How to prevent iTerm2 from creating overlaps and broken lines after pasting multiline chunks of text? If I paste multiline chunks of text into iTerm2, I always a get mess of output. It seems limited to only some programs running interactively (such as Bash, IRB - Python / VIM work flawlessly). Using Apple's native Terminal, I can paste whatever I want wherever I want - it works. For example, this sample text ():  echo Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec a diam lectus. echo Sed sit amet ipsum mauris. Maecenas congue ligula ac quam viverra nec consectetur ante hendrerit. echo Donec et mollis dolor. Praesent et diam eget libero egestas mattis sit amet vitae augue. echo Nam tincidunt congue enim, ut porta lorem lacinia consectetur. Donec ut libero sed arcu vehicula ultricies a non tortor. echo Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean ut gravida lorem. Ut turpis felis, pulvinar a semper sed, adipiscing id dolor. echo Pellentesque auctor nisi id magna consequat sagittis. Curabitur dapibus enim sit amet elit pharetra tincidunt feugiat nisl imperdiet. echo Ut convallis libero in urna ultrices accumsan. Donec sed odio eros. Donec viverra mi quis quam pulvinar at malesuada arcu rhoncus. [snip]   pasted into IRB produces this in iTerm2:    while it produces this in native Terminal:    I am running the latest versions of OSX and iTerm2. What's going wrong here? Transferring a Windows 8 license and proper un- and reinstallation Long story short  I have two computers: a laptop and a desktop computer. Both have Windows 7 on them.  I buy the Windows 8 Pro upgrade. To see if it screws up anything, I install it on my laptop as a guinea pig. I intend to use Windows 8 for my main computer, my desktop, but I want to test it on the laptop, so I know I don’t risk losing access to my desktop and the data on it. I never use my laptop, and only used it, because it already has a Windows 7 installation on it.  The problem  At some point, I must have entered the license key on my laptop, because when I go to the activation screen on my desktop, I get this:    Uh-oh. I can’t use the key on my desktop. Now how the hell do I transfer the key from my laptop to my desktop computer?  Answers and suggestions so far  Let’s just say that I tried everything possible to get some answers on this matter. The best response I got from Microsoft is this:     To install Windows 8 on your desktop, do the following:         Uninstall Windows 8 on your laptop   Afterwards, install Windows 8 on your desktop   If it won’t activate, call product activation at (...)      I am not a fan of that last point. The error message does allude to such a solution, however:     If you’ve reinstalled Windows or made changes to your hardware recently, you may be able to use your current key.   The question  My main question is this: has anyone been in a similar situation, and if so, what did you do to resolve this?  Failing that, what is the proper way to   uninstall the Windows 8 installation on my laptop, and reinstall the Windows 8 installation on my desktop?   Ad 1  I have already tried using the “reset” feature on my laptop, but that only resulted in a new Windows 8 installation that was already activated. But which is the right way to uninstall the installation in a way that allows me to use the license key on the desktop computer?  Ad 2  Which is the proper way to reinstall the Windows 8 installation on my desktop computer? Why do I even have to reinstall it in the first place?  I won’t get around to do this, until my USB key with 3.0 support arrives in the mail, but it is going to be a while, until I find a assuaging response to the best way to go about this anyway. Why rationalize the denominator? In grade school we learn to rationalize denominators of fractions when possible. We are taught that $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$ is simpler than $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$.  says that "there is a bias against roots in the denominator of a fraction". But such fractions are well-defined and I'm failing to see anything wrong with $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ - in fact, IMO it is simpler than $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$ because 1 is simpler than 2 (or similarly, because the former can trivially be rewritten without a fraction).  So why does this bias against roots in the denominator exist and what is its justification? The only reason I can think of is that the bias is a relic of a time before the reals were understood well enough for mathematicians to be comfortable dividing by irrationals, but I have been unable to find a source to corroborate or contradict this guess. The description of the  says:     Your Intelligence score is 19 while you wear this headband. It has no   effect on you if your Intelligence is already 19 or higher.   The  spell description says that my Intelligence score becomes 1 on a failed save:     [...] On a failed save, the creature's Intelligence and Charisma   scores become 1. The creature can't cast spells, activate magic items,   understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way. [...]   If I am affected by Feeblemind and I am wearing the Headband of Intellect, would I have an Intelligence score of 19 or 1?   Also, what about the other effects like not being able to cast, activate magic items, understand languages or communicate in any way? Those seem Intelligence-related, but are mentioned additionally to the reduction.   If the Intelligence score becomes 19, are the other effects still active? Prove there are no other solutions of functional equation $f(x+y) = \frac{f(x)+f(y)}{1-f(x)f(y)}$ How to change the order of the subcategory and category in a post? I guess it is something simple which I'm not able to see. Any help would be much appreciated. Best, M. Load R package from character string No continuous function switches $\mathbb{Q}$ and the irrationals I know that for a Banach space $X$ and a linear functional $T:X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ in its dual $X'$ the following holds: \begin{align}T \text{ is continuous } \iff \text{Ker }T \text{ is closed}\end{align} which probably holds for general operators $T:X\rightarrow Y$ with finite-dimensional Banach space $Y$. I think the argument doesn't work for infinite-dimensional Banach spaces $Y$. Is the statement still correct? I.e. continuity of course still implies the closedness of the kernel for general Banach spaces $X,Y$ but is the converse still true? Decode JWT Token in Apex Are there any organised resources available from where I can begin my quantum computing studies?