I opened a Facebook account for my husband using the same email as mine for my Facebook account. I have since purchased a new computer and when I enter my email address and password it says the password is wrong. When I use my husband's password it brings me to his Facebook page.    How do I access my Facebook page on my new computer if I can't use our email and my password?
My husband wanted me to set up a Facebook account for him and I accidentally used our shared email address, which is set against my own account.  Since then, neither of us has been able to log in, so I can't alter any settings.  Can anyone advise how to resolve this please?
Why didn't James' love and sacrifice for Lily protect her? We know that Harry survived Voldemort's killing curse because Lily loved him so much that she sacrificed herself in an attempt to protect him. This resulted in a very powerful charm that pretty much rendered Harry immune to Voldemort (until Voldemort figured out the work-around). Then there's this passage describing that night:  [Voldemort] was over the threshold as James came sprinting down the hall. It was easy, too easy, he had not even picked up his wand ... &quot;Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off -&quot; Hold him off, without a wand in his hand! ... He laughed before casting the curse ... &quot;Avada Kedavra!&quot; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 17: Bathilda's Secret  So James Potter, fully aware that he was sacrificing himself (he said &quot;I'll hold him off,&quot; not &quot;I'll get rid of him&quot;) ran to face Voldemort because of his love for Lily and Harry. This seems to be very similar to how Lily tried to protect Harry from Voldemort even though she knew she would die. It seems to me that the same charm should have been cast upon Lily when James died, but just moments later Voldemort killed her too. Apparently James' sacrifice did not result in a charm that protected Lily, even though he did it from love for her and Harry. Why is this? Was something different in the circumstances? I heard about nautilus-gksu and would like to install it. Unfortunately, when I try, I get this:  glemi@XPS:~$ sudo apt-get install nautilus-gksu Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done E: Unable to locate package nautilus-gksu   How and where can I get this package? Are there philosophers who examined the reasons for believing in the existence of other people? While I am familiar with Descartes and the oft-quoted idea, I think therefore I am, I am not familiar with any philosophy that actively sought to rationalize that anybody else exists.  Are there philosophers who analyzed this question? Or is it taken for granted that it is (im)possible for anybody to validate their own existence to somebody else? What caused the oathbreakers in the Paths of the Dead to turn into shades? In Return of the King, we are told that the shades who populate the Paths of the Dead are the spirits of oathbreakers who refused to aid Isildur in the first fight against Sauron.  First, we are told of the oath (Book 5, Chapter 2):     But the oath that they broke was to fight against Sauron... For at Erech there stands a stands yet a stone that was brought, it is said, from Númenor by Isildur... and upon it the King of the Mountains swore allegiance to him in the beginning of the realm of Gondor.   Then, when they fail to honor the oath, we are told about Isildur's curse on them:     "...this curse I lay upon thee and thy folk: to rest never until your oath is fulfilled."   And as we see in the following chapters, the Sleepless Dead are indeed subject to this curse exactly as Isildur descibed it. What seems less clear, however, is how Isildur's curse manages to alter the fundamental nature of the oathbreakers' mortality, so that they became undead shades instead of simply dying in disgrace.   Do we have any other examples of Isildur performing similar acts of magic? Based on what we are told in LotR, Isildur appears to have been a great warrior, but not a regular practitioner of magic. Is the stone at Erech somehow magically involved? (If so, do we know anything more about it or how it works? Does its origin in Númenor have any significance?) It is mentioned that the oathbreakers had worshiped Sauron; could this be a clue? These days, the standard way to present differential calculus is by introducing the Cauchy-Weierstrass definition of the limit. One then defines the derivative as a limit, proves results like the Leibniz and chain rules, and uses this machinery to differentiate some simple functions such as polynomials. The purpose of my question is to see what creative alternatives people can describe to this approach. The nature of the question is that there is not going to be a single best answer. I have several methods that I've collected which I'll put in as answers to my own question.  It's not reasonable to expect answers to include an entire introductory textbook treatment of differentiation, nor would anyone want to read answers that were that lengthy. A sketch is fine. Lack of rigor is fine. Well known notation and terminology can be assumed. It would be nice to develop things to the point where one can differentiate a polynomial, since that would help to illustrate how your method works and demonstrate that it's usable. For this purpose, it suffices to prove that if $n&gt;0$ is an integer, the derivative of $x^n$ equals $0$ at $0$ and equals $n$ at $1$; the result at other nonzero values of $x$ follows by scaling. Doing this for $n=2$ is fine if the generalization to $n&gt;2$ is obvious. PhD thesis without acknowledgements During the process of writing my PhD thesis, I was close to falling out with my adviser, the advice I received from other staff at the lab (including the director) was unhelpful at best. I have since made up with my adviser and have successfully defended the thesis. I now have to publish my thesis.  The department says that one can include acknowledgements. All of the theses I have seen in my lab and in my department feature acknowledgements. Due to this special situation,  I don't quite feel that acknowledgements are called for. Yes, my adviser helped during the first half of the project but then almost completely reverted his stance. In terms of contribution, it is my opinion that he comes out at 0%.  I do not want to address any of the issues in the acknowledgements. I do not think that this is the right place. Likewise, I do not feel like thanking any of the involved people. Therefore, I would just leave out the acknowledgements completely. In academia, is this considered worse than lukewarm acknowledgements? Should I actually care about the acknowledgement, because others do? When reading about  on the OALD, I saw the following note:     The difference between someone and anyone is the same as the difference between  and . Look at the notes there.   The note that I read for some is the following:     In negative sentences and questions any is usually used instead of some:           I don't want any more vegetables.     Is there any wine left?           However, some is used in questions that expect a positive reply:           Would you like some milk in your coffee?     Didn't you borrow some books of mine?      Does that apply to someone too? Should I use someone in a question when I am expecting a positive answer?      Does someone know the answer? Content Assist for JSF2 + CDI (weld) beans + Eclipse Helios If $F:M\to N$ is a smooth embedding, then so is $dF:TM\to TN$. Consider the space of continuously differentiable functions, $$C^1([a,b]) = \{f:[a,b]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\mid f,f' \text{ are continuous}\}$$ with the $C^1$-norm $$\lVert f\rVert := \sup_{a\leq x\leq b}|f(x)|+\sup_{a\leq x\leq b}|f'(x)|.$$ Prove that $C^1([a,b])$ is a Banach Space.   This was the proof we were given: Assuming $C^1([a,b])$ is a normed linear space all we need to show is completeness. Let $(f_n)$ be a Cauchy Sequence in $C^1([a,b])$ with respect to the $C^1$-norm. Then each $f_n,f'_n\in (C([a,b]),\|\cdot\|_{\sup})$. We know that $C([a,b])$ is complete and thus there exists $f,g\in C([a,b])$ such that $f_n\rightarrow f$, and $f'_n\rightarrow g$ (uniformly) with respect to $\|\cdot\|_{\sup}$. If we let  $$ F_n(x) = \int_a^x f_n(t)dt, \hspace{2mm}  F(x) = \int_a^x f(t)dt $$ then $F_n\rightarrow F$ uniformly because  $$\lVert F_n-F\rVert_{\sup}\leq \sup_{a\leq x\leq b}\int_a^x|f_n(t)-f(t)|dt\leq \lVert f_n-f\rVert_{\sup}&lt;\epsilon.$$ From the fundamental theorem of calculus: $$f_n(x)-f_n(a) = \int_a^x f'_n(t)dt $$ Since $f'_n\rightarrow g$ uniformly then  $$ \int_a^xf'_n(t)dt\rightarrow \int_a^x g(t)dt $$ Since we know that $f_n\rightarrow f$ uniformly, $$f(x)-f(a) = \int_a^x g(t) dt $$ which by the fundamental theorem of calculues implies $f'=g$. So we know have $f_n\rightarrow f$ and $f'_n\rightarrow g=f'$ which mean $f_n\rightarrow f\in C^1([a,b])$ with respect to $C^1$-norm. So every cauchy sequence converges. Hence $C^1([a,b])$ is a Banach Space.   So I understand most of the proof. Where I get confused is that how did we actually show this satisfies the $C^1$-norm? Maybe I don't understand what this norm actually does.   Thank you for any help, comments and advice! I realised, reading another Phys.SE question about  that I don't really understand how  works. Particularly concerning, for a SCUBA diver.  The top answers to that question seem to claim that balloons get their "sense of down" from a pressure differential. They continue: when a car accelerates, the air at the back of the car becomes more dense, and at the front less dense, changing the plane of the pressure differential and so also, the balloon's sense of up. I find that extremely hard to credit. However, I realised that I don't really know why less dense things float in more dense things.  I'm fairly sure it's something to do with displacement of heavier things by lighter things, and I think pressure acting on the lighter thing's surface has something to do with it, but that's about it. From the Immediate Window in Visual Studio:   &gt; Path.Combine(@"C:\x", "y") "C:\\x\\y" &gt; Path.Combine(@"C:\x", @"\y") "\\y"   It seems that they should both be the same.    The old FileSystemObject.BuildPath() didn't work this way... Perfect set without rationals Please check my simplification for x? Trigger to use HTTP callout and update record with the results I have been trying to integrate Google Shortener API into my salesforce org. I wrote a class to make the call out, but am having difficulty bringing the value back into the record. I have a custom object called "referral_advocate__c" with a field called "Short_URL__c". Anytime the field "unique_ID__c" has a value, I am wanting to send this value with a static URL to google shortener and then save the response value to "referral_advocate__c.short_URL__c" on the record. This is the class to make the call out:  public class URLshort {  final string urls = 'https://www.myurl.com'; referral_advocate__c adv = new referral_advocate__c();  @future(callout = true) public static void URLshortner() {      HttpRequest req = new HttpRequest();     HttpResponse res = new HttpResponse();     Http http = new Http();      req.setEndpoint('https://www.googleapis.com/urlshortener/v1/url?key=myapikey');     req.setMethod('POST');     req.setHeader('Content-Type','application/json');            req.setBody('{"longUrl":+urls + adv.unique_reference_number_c}');       try {         res = http.send(req);         System.debug(res.getBody());     } catch(System.CalloutException e) {         System.debug('Callout error: '+ e);         System.debug(res.toString());     }   }  }   The after insert trigger on "referral_advocate__c" I wrote is not firing correctly. How do I return the results from this class and update the field "short_URL__C" with the returned value from a trigger? I met a guy on a sugar daddy dating site and we talked, I told him my situation and he said he would help.   He asked for my bank account information and I told him you can use cash app or PayPal to go through. He said his account manager deals with his finances. So I set up an account with a bank that I don’t use so that my primary account isn’t used.  Eventually he was in the process of sending me money and we had agreed on a amount that wasn't crazy. But then he asked for my address and I asked why and he said just wondering. Then said he wanted to send me a surprise for being his baby. Which I didn’t give.  Then later on he sent the money and said he sent me a bonus and that I was supposed to use that to pay his mothers caregiver, which he didn’t mention until after.  I kept questioning him and he was saying that he works in construction and he’s trusting me to carry out the errand. Then he said don’t let him down and I asked him if he was threatening me and he kept saying I need this done but didn’t really answer my question.  Am I being scammed? I’m about to change my password but is this a scam? Has anyone used PostgreSQL with PostGIS successfully?   I am a semi-experienced ArcGIS user and want to build out a database and connect it to ArcCatalog.   I've scoured the internet for resources but nobody has really given a good walkthrough. Possible to do a MySQL foreign key to one of two possible tables? Is the uncertainty principle just saying something about what an observer can know or is it a fundamental property of nature? I ask this question because I have read two different quotes on the  that don't seem to match very well. There are similar questions around here but I would like an explanation that reconciles these two interpretations specifically:   Feynman talks about the uncertainty principle in one of his lectures and mentions it as the reason why electrons don't crash into the atom's nucleus: If they did they would have an exact location and momentum which is not allowed by the uncertainty principle. In saying this it is clear that the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of nature because it has an effect on where an electron can reside. Recently I read - somewhere else but I forgot where exactly - an account of the uncertainty principle where there was explained how we can measure position of a particle by firing another particle into it, the collision disturbs the velocity of the observed particle therefore we can not know its momentum anymore.   Now, 2) very much seems like a limitation of what the observer can know, while 1) attributes a fundamental property of nature to it (electrons don't crash into the nucleus). What is the correct way to think about this? I'm trying to write a script which creates a Nurbs path curve, bevels it, and then stores the location of each vertex/point in that curve. I've been writing it based on the code displayed in the info panel, but it doesn't show what the vertices are supposed to be called - so I can't refer to them in the script.  Update: After following Ratt's links, I modified  for Nurbs Path and am now stuck again, though it's still progress. Below is one version I tried out, but the error message says that Curve has no attribute path_points. Of course it doesn't, because I made that up because I don't know what the Nurbs Path equivalent for bezier_points is.  import bpy import random  def pathPointLoc(cu, typ, points):      for (n) in enumerate(points):         nurb = cu.path_points[n]         print(nurb.location)      return  cu = bpy.data.curves.new("MyCurve", "CURVE") ob = bpy.data.objects.new("MyCurveObject", cu) scn = bpy.context.scene scn.objects.link(ob) scn.objects.active = ob  cu.bevel_object = bpy.data.objects["BezierCircle"] cu.taper_object = bpy.data.objects["BezierCircle"]  pathPointLoc(cu, "NURBS", [(0,0,0,1), (0,0,1,random.randint(1,4)), (0,1,1,1), (1,4,1,1)] )