My rims are pretty old and I need help in buying a new ones. Can I use 26er rims for 26x1.95 tires?
I tried getting a good measurement with my caliper, but the flexibility of the tire doesn't help much. Let's say I have a 26&quot;x2.125&quot; tire. I know this fits on an ISO 559mm bead seat diameter rim, and 26&quot; = 660.4mm. 26&quot;:  The OD of the tire including the tread? The OD of the tire excluding the tread? When aired up or deflated? Means it fits a 559mm ISO BSD None of the above?  2.125&quot;:  Width of tread? Width of sidewall? Inflated or deflated?  Essentially, I'm converting the tire sizes to &quot;height off rim in mm&quot; and drawing them with a wheel in a web application, so I need to know how &quot;tire size&quot; translates to this measurement. I'm somewhat assuming that the fractional sizes can be converted to the same measurement, but I'm aware that they have certain differences - so any help there would be of value as well.  has been helpful, but still leaves me with the questions above.
Does anyone know why typedefs of class names don't work like class names for the friend declaration?  class A { public: };  class B : public A { public:    typedef A SUPERCLASS; };  typedef A X;  class C { public:    friend class A;             // OK    friend class X;             // fails    friend class B::SUPERCLASS; // fails }; Is normality testing 'essentially useless'? A former colleague once argued to me as follows:      We usually apply normality tests to the results of processes that,   under the null, generate random variables that are only   asymptotically or nearly normal (with the 'asymptotically' part dependent on some quantity which we cannot make large); In the era of   cheap memory, big data, and fast processors, normality tests should   always reject the null of normal distribution for large (though not insanely large) samples. And so, perversely, normality tests should   only be used for small samples, when they presumably have lower power   and less control over type I rate.   Is this a valid argument? Is this a well-known argument? Are there well known tests for a 'fuzzier' null hypothesis than normality? If I change the ISO settings on my camera, obviously the gain of the system is increased, amplifying the signal from the sensor. What's not clear to me is where the amplification takes place. I see several possibilities:   In the sensor, by increasing voltage or some other mechanism Via an analog amplifier outside of the sensor Digitally, after the signal has been digitized, but before storing data in the RAW file As a parameter applied solely in creating an image from RAW   If #4 is true, then you could take a 4-stop overexposed RAW picture at ISO 1600, and then in post processing produce a JPEG at ISO 100 that would be the same as if the original photo had been shot at ISO 100.  If #1 or #2 is true, then a RAW file shot at ISO 1600 would actually contain more information about shadows, and an ISO 100 RAW would contain more information about highlights. I just recently completed a neutral run where I experimented seeing how the story would go on if I only killed certain characters (it was my second run, my first run was True Pacifist) and I ended up choosing to kill Flowey instead of letting him live. I planned to start a Genocide run after resetting the game, but Flowey was gone when i did. Flowey is basically the base for each story in undertale (pacifist and genocide) so I know I can't progress any further without him being here. I really just want to start anew and, without Flowey, I dont think I can access True Resets anymore. It may be possible if I did a genocide route, but then I'd have to fight Sans, and that would take FOREVER.  Basically, I am wondering if I can erase all my progress somehow. I heard that True Resets don't erase everything entirely, so is there another way? Please respond, Undertale is the only game I have that's any fun and I don't want to have to buy another game. Reciprocal of Holder's inequality Does anyone know how to do this exercise? I couldn't do it.  Let $(X,S,\mu)$ be a $\sigma$ -finite measure space and $g\in M(X,S)$ such that $gs\in\mathcal{L}_1$ for any simple function $s\in\mathcal{L}_p$, $p\in(1,\infty)$. Suppose there is $A\geq0$ such that $\left|\int gs\,d\mu\right|\leq A||s||_p$ for all $s$. Show that $g\in\mathcal{L}_p$ with $\frac1p+\frac1q=1$ and $||g||_q\leq A$. How can I escape white space in a bash loop list? I have a bash shell script that loops through all child directories (but not files) of a certain directory.  The problem is that some of the directory names contain spaces.    Here are the contents of my test directory:  $ls -F test Baltimore/  Cherry Hill/  Edison/  New York City/  Philadelphia/  cities.txt   And the code that loops through the directories:  for f in `find test/* -type d`; do   echo $f done   Here's the output:   test/Baltimore test/Cherry Hill test/Edison  test/New York City test/Philadelphia   Cherry Hill and New York City are treated as 2 or 3 separate entries.  I tried quoting the filenames, like so:  for f in `find test/* -type d | sed -e 's/^/\"/' | sed -e 's/$/\"/'`; do   echo $f done   but to no avail.  There's got to be a simple way to do this.    The answers below are great.  But to make this more complicated - I don't always want to use the directories listed in my test directory.  Sometimes I want to pass in the directory names as command-line parameters instead.  I took Charles' suggestion of setting the IFS and came up with the following:  dirlist="${@}" (   [[ -z "$dirlist" ]] &amp;&amp; dirlist=`find test -mindepth 1 -type d` &amp;&amp; IFS=$'\n'   for d in $dirlist; do     echo $d   done )   and this works just fine unless there are spaces in the command line arguments (even if those arguments are quoted).  For example, calling the script like this: test.sh "Cherry Hill" "New York City" produces the following output:   Cherry Hill New York City Using ls to find files that end in a character, ignoring extension I am supposed to use ls to find files that end in a certain letter, but it does not matter if the file has an extension or not.  For example, I want it to do this  &gt; ls test test.txt test.ascii other.txt  &gt; ls [something] test test.txt test.ascii  So that I can find files that end with a 't', but it doesn't include the file where the extension ends in t  Edit: I am supposed to assume that the only period characters in the filename will be for the extension and there will be no others How to parseInt a string with leading 0 Get rid of the question ban on Meta; suspend actively harmful users manually I know this proof is somewhat similar, or related to the Baire's Category Theorem but I can't seem to figure out how to do it.  The Baire Category theorem asserts that if X is a complete metric space or a locally compact Hausdorff space (my case), then the complement of a countable union of nowhere dense sets is always nonempty.  How can I use this on the proof? Remove all packages installed from a PPA? I have installed LibreOffice 4 using PPA. I was using LibreOffice 3, then  I had upgraded to LibreOffice 4, because I was somewhat eager to try a new version.   Now since I found that LibreOffice 4 has some issues, including handling my native language, I want to move back to LibreOffice 3.  This question  has already some answers which has some similarity with my above mentioned issue, but it does not solve my problem. This question talks about downgrading from a specific version of LibreOffice, namely from 4.0 to 3.6. The solutions mentioned are not the ones I am looking for. They will work, but the  solutions suggest either downloading .deb files for LibreOffice 3.6 or adding PPA for them. Furthermore, some of the answers put out-of-proportion~(applicable for the solution, however) stress on use of , not general command-line-solution.     I want a general solution without using PPA or downloading .deb files. All I want is to move back from the (higher) PPA version to the (lower) official version.  Anyway, in order to accomplish this, I removed the LibreOffice config directory from my home and then purged LibreOffice from my machine.  sudo apt-get purge libreoffice-*   Then I removed the relevant PPA's using the sudo apt-add-repository --remove command. And then ran sudo apt-get update.  Now, when I try to install LibreOffice using the command  sudo apt-get install libreoffice   I get an avalanche of output about unmet dependencies, something like,   The following packages have unmet dependencies:  libreoffice : Depends: libreoffice-core (= 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4) but it is not going to be installed (snipped)    If I dig the issue further, by using the command,  sudo apt-get install libreoffice-core   I get    The following packages have unmet dependencies:  libreoffice-core : Depends: libreoffice-common (&gt; 1:3.5.7) but it is not going to be installed                 Depends: libexttextcat0 (&gt;= 2.2-8) but it is not going to be installed                 Depends: ure (&gt;= 3.5.7~) but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.    Could you please tell me how do I install LibreOffice 3 in my machine?  I am using Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.    EDIT  Before receiving , I was wondering, at this very moment, if I take a fresh computer, and install Ubuntu 12.04, LibreOffice installation will work without a hitch. Then why I can not install LibreOffice in my 12.04 machine today from simple command line?  Then the accepted answer clarified everything. I need to use ppa-purge so that this resets all packages from a PPA to the standard versions released for my distribution.  Basically it is like a way to restore my system back to the way it was before my installed packages from a PPA.  further elaborates the idea.    worked perfectly for me. Actually, this was an education for me since it taught me how do downgrade a package that was added via PPA. And I realized that the answer actually teaches us to "move from PPA installation  of a package to official lower version package." How do I disable X at boot time so that the system boots in text mode? Is it possible to disable X at boot time? I'm setting up a server so it would be nice if it wouldn't load the graphical interface every time I boot. Are there 'stack' sites for Mac or Windows? There is Ubuntu and Unix/Linux site but is there special 'stack' site for Mac and Windows?  For context, the question I am looking to ask: I accidentally connected a Windows NTFS formatted HDD to a Mac. And the Mac (may be) quick-formatted it. I think that the information is there, but the FAT table is gone. How I can recover the information. Spacelike interval and length contraction I am having a serious trouble finding an agreement between the two facts in Special Relativity:  (1) given two events $A$ and $B$ in spacetime separeted by a spacelike interval $s$, the distance in space between the two events will be the shortest in the reference frame which the two events occur simultaneously:   The invariance of the interval says $s^2=(\Delta x)^2-(c\Delta t)^2$ and $\Delta x$ is minimum when $\Delta t=0$  (2) the length contraction says $L=\dfrac{L_0}{\gamma}$ where $\gamma=(1-(v/c)^2)^{-1/2}$ , $L_0$ is the proper length of an object in a reference frame which the object is at rest and $L$ is the length of the object in a reference frame which the object moves with speed $v$ in the $x$ direction.  This says that the lenght of the object in the $x$ direction is the largest in the comoving reference frame of this object.  The question is: According to (1), the reference frame in which two events $A$ and $B$ occur simultaneously is the reference frame that gives the shortest distance in space between the two events. Let $A$ and $B$ be the two end points of a meter stick in a reference frame in which the stick is at rest and at time $t=0$. This two events occur simultaneously, so the distance in space between the two is the shortest acording to (1). But according to (2) shouldn't this distance be the largest?  What is wrong? Compact way to assign values by slicing list in Python Every non-empty subset of the integers which is bounded above has a largest element. I was reading a proof about every non-empty subset of the integers which is bounded above has a largest element, but i have troubles in one step. Here is the proof:  Since $S$ is a non-empty subset of $\mathbb{Z}$(hence $\mathbb{R}$) which is bounded above, by the supremum property $sup S$ exists. Let $w=supS$, then we have to show that $w \in S$, so we suppose $w \notin S$, then we have $w-1&lt;w$, then exists $m\in S$ such that $w-1&lt;m&lt;w$(here is my problem, why can we take $m\in S$ such that happens? we are in $\mathbb{Z}$, so that does not happens). Then he takes $n\in S$ such that $w-1&lt;m&lt;n&lt;w$. The inequality $n&lt;w$ implies that $-w&lt;-n$, and $w-1&lt;m$, if we add up both inequalities we have $-1&lt;m-n$ implies $n-m&lt;1$, then $0&lt;n-m&lt;1$ which is a contradiction because there are no integers between $0$ and $1$ Can anybody explains me if that step is right?? How can I prove this if there is a problem with that step? Thanks! How to determine when Settings change on iOS Error when using endfloat with unicode characters Tag suggestions are empty Do Wine Viruses only work while Wine is running?