Can I grapple and drag someone to grant opportunity attacks against them?
When can I make opportunity attacks?
Why was Dumbledore worried by the cut in Harry's arm? Distorted Cabin & Oily Sheen: What is going on in this paragraph? Disable the guest user completely in El Capitan without having to disable 'Find My Mac' I know it should be straight forward but unfortunately, it  isn't.  I did disable the guest user in the System Preferences by unchecking the checkbox for Allow guests to login in to this computer, but it still shows up on the login screen.  I have heard that disabling 'Find My Mac' would fix it for OS X Lion, but I want to keep it.  Is there a way to do this? Algorithm for computing Hadamard product of two rational generating functions If I have two generating functions $A(x) = \sum_na_nx^n$ and $B(x) = \sum_n b_nx^n$   then the Hadamard product is $(A \star B)(x) = \sum_{n} a_nb_nx^n$.  Now when $A$ and $B$ are both rational functions ($P(x)/Q(x)$ with polynomials $P, Q$) I've seen non-constructive proofs that $A \star B$ is also rational.  Given two rational generating functions $A$, $B$, is there an algorithm that efficiently computes $A \star B$? Or at least a constructive proof you could use to write an algorithm? I've seen lately that new question editing is stored somewhere for later use if we wander off the new question without posting it and then return back to the page. Which is a good functionality addition in it's own right.  What I'd like to also have is the Discard this draft functionality that would clear form data and forget it. Somehow we find an answer in the meantime and the question isn't valid any more.  So having a Discard saved draft or something similar would be a nice contra-functionality to auto-save to remove stored data. The way it's implemented now seems too hidden hidden and unpredictable to users.  Additional edit  When adding hidden auto functionality usually means creating the opposite as well by either giving the possibility to preference of not having automatism at all or giving the possibility to clear what's been auto saved.  Let's see how GMail doesn't work (and I think we all agree that from UX perspective it does the job as expected:   User clicks Compose message User starts writing a new email message User decides to not send the message and checks their inbox User clicks Compose message again A clean form is presented to user (old one being part of drafts)   I'm not suggesting we should have something like Saved drafts but we surely should have the possibility to clear previous question draft.  Since this new functionality was introduced I should point out that I would use the discard functionality more frequently than the saved one. I do welcome saving messages, but discarding of saved drafts is anything but a rare situation one might want to do. It wouldn't be a problem if this was a 1% against 99%. To me it's more like 50/50.  Best possible solution  When providing saved drafts there should (from the UX perspective) be the opposite functionality as well. Namely discarding of it. But first thing we should be asking ourselves is:    do users more frequently need pre-filled saved question draft or do users more frequently need empty form with the possibility to populate it with a saved draft   User testing should provide the usage frequency between the two and the one that's more likely to happen (my guess is that there would be a big difference between the two) should be implemented. So one of these:   Pre-populate question fields with saved draft on question form load, while also providing a button to clear the draft and start writing anew without the need to manually clear all the fields (which would be the optimal solution in case of a single field form) Question form should always load empty while also having a button that would pre-populate it with a saved draft.   I think this would be the best consensus related to saved question drafts and their usage. But as we've seen this issue has been swept under the rug for an indefinite time. How can I obtain a Cauchy distribution from two standard normal distributions? I am interested in      Let $X\sim N(0,1), Y \sim N(0,1)$ independently. Show $\frac{X}{X+Y}$   is a Cauchy random variable.   My work:  $f_{X,Y}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi} e^{\frac{-1}{2}(x^2+y^2)}, -\infty&lt;x,y&lt;\infty$ by independence  Let $U=\frac{X}{X+Y},V=X+Y$. (Is there a better $V$ to choose for this bivariate transformation?)  Then, $X=UV, Y=V - UV$. So, $|J|=V$.  $f_{U,V}(u,v)=f_{X,Y}(uv,v-uv)|J|=\frac{v}{2\pi}e^{\frac{-v^2}{2}(2u^2-2u+1)},-\infty&lt;u&lt;\infty$  $f_U(u)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}ve^{\frac{-v^2}{2}(2u^2-2u+1)}dv$. Let $y=\frac{v^2}{2}(2u^2-2u+1)$, so $dy=v(1+2u^2-2u)dv$. Then,  $f_U(u)=\frac{1}{2\pi(2u^2-2u+1)}\int_0^{\infty}e^{-y}dy=(\pi[(\frac{u-1/2}{2})^2+1])^{-1}, -\infty&lt;u&lt;\infty$,   which is not exactly a Cauchy distribution. Where did I mess up? More importantly, how would you proceed in solving this problem? This is problem 31b) from Dummit and Foote chapter 14.2. I am looking for a hint on how to attack the problem, since I have been thinking about it for a couple of hours but I don't even know where to start. The problem says:  Let $K$ be a finite extension of $F$ of degree $n$. Let $\alpha$ be an element of $K$. Prove that the minimal polynomial for $\alpha$ over $F$ is the same as the minimal polynomial for the linear transformation $T_{\alpha}$. In this problem, $T_{\alpha}$ is an $F$-linear transformation of $K$ that arises from $\alpha$ acting by left multiplication on $K$.  I appreciate any helpful suggestions on how to start attacking the problem or any possible hint. Thanks! Is there a gender-neutral pronoun that can replace “his” or “her”? No Dropbox top panel icon since update to 18.04 UFW Allows 22 for IPv4 and IPv6 but SSH Disconnects When Enabling sudo ufw disable followed by sudo ufw enable kicks me out of SSH  DMESG reports  [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=30:........ SRC=192.168.1.me DST=192.168.1.server LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=128 ID=15776 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=55640 DPT=22 WINDOW=253 RES=0x00 ACK URGP=0  I can log back in without having to change rules via the console (UFW still enabled).  This started after upgrading Xenial (16.04) from kernel 4.4 to 4.15 (HWE). Upgrading to 18.04.1 did not solve the issue.  Versions:   iptables v1.6.1 ufw 0.35 4.15.0-29-generic #31-Ubuntu Ubuntu 18.04.1 LTS   UFW status verbose is (some rules were omitted, but they are all ALLOW)  Logging: on (low) Default: deny (incoming), allow (outgoing), disabled (routed) New profiles: skip  To                         Action      From --                         ------      ---- 22                         ALLOW IN    Anywhere 22 (v6)                    ALLOW IN    Anywhere (v6)   Why is this happening, or at least, how to revert to the expected behavior?  I looked at , and I am not sure it applies, but here's /etc/ufw/before.rules  # # rules.before # # Rules that should be run before the ufw command line added rules. Custom # rules should be added to one of these chains: #   ufw-before-input #   ufw-before-output #   ufw-before-forward #  # Don't delete these required lines, otherwise there will be errors *filter :ufw-before-input - [0:0] :ufw-before-output - [0:0] :ufw-before-forward - [0:0] :ufw-not-local - [0:0] # End required lines   # allow all on loopback -A ufw-before-input -i lo -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-output -o lo -j ACCEPT  # quickly process packets for which we already have a connection -A ufw-before-input -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-output -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-forward -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT  # drop INVALID packets (logs these in loglevel medium and higher) -A ufw-before-input -m conntrack --ctstate INVALID -j ufw-logging-deny -A ufw-before-input -m conntrack --ctstate INVALID -j DROP  # ok icmp codes for INPUT -A ufw-before-input -p icmp --icmp-type destination-unreachable -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-input -p icmp --icmp-type source-quench -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-input -p icmp --icmp-type time-exceeded -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-input -p icmp --icmp-type parameter-problem -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-input -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j ACCEPT  # ok icmp code for FORWARD -A ufw-before-forward -p icmp --icmp-type destination-unreachable -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-forward -p icmp --icmp-type source-quench -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-forward -p icmp --icmp-type time-exceeded -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-forward -p icmp --icmp-type parameter-problem -j ACCEPT -A ufw-before-forward -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j ACCEPT  # allow dhcp client to work -A ufw-before-input -p udp --sport 67 --dport 68 -j ACCEPT  # # ufw-not-local # -A ufw-before-input -j ufw-not-local  # if LOCAL, RETURN -A ufw-not-local -m addrtype --dst-type LOCAL -j RETURN  # if MULTICAST, RETURN -A ufw-not-local -m addrtype --dst-type MULTICAST -j RETURN  # if BROADCAST, RETURN -A ufw-not-local -m addrtype --dst-type BROADCAST -j RETURN  # all other non-local packets are dropped -A ufw-not-local -m limit --limit 3/min --limit-burst 10 -j ufw-logging-deny -A ufw-not-local -j DROP  # allow MULTICAST mDNS for service discovery (be sure the MULTICAST line above # is uncommented) -A ufw-before-input -p udp -d 224.0.0.251 --dport 5353 -j ACCEPT  # allow MULTICAST UPnP for service discovery (be sure the MULTICAST line above # is uncommented) -A ufw-before-input -p udp -d 239.255.255.250 --dport 1900 -j ACCEPT  # don't delete the 'COMMIT' line or these rules won't be processed COMMIT   PS: I didn't expect this to "fix" the issue but just for reference I changed the port SSHD listens on (and the corresponding rule) and the problem persists. Reset password in Drupal 6? Is there a way to resolve probability of an event, given another event that never happens? Mathematically speaking the problem is:  Given that $P(B) = 0$,  $$P(A|B)=\frac{P(A \cap B)}{P(B)} = \frac{0}{0}$$  Is this probability vacuously $0$ of $1$? Can we show that it's one or the other? Why was William Cage sent to the base? When a new tag is created, should there be some kind of notification to the user?  This could serve a dual purpose:   To make the user check that this tag is really required.  Is it spelt right? Might there be a more appropriate tag to use instead? - See  To promote the creation of tag wikis.   These are both beneficial to the site.  Making users think twice about their tags reduces the amount of retagging edits that are needed and reduces noise.  Promoting tag wikis means that more new tags would come with explainations, making them more user-friendly for others.  Creating a new tag is a privilidge earned at 1500 reputation.  Hopefully the user has gained a feel for the ethos of SO by this point, and is either enjoying being a contributer or is mainly asking good, well recieved questions.  The user is probably also wanting to contribute to the site further (even if just to gain reputation), and so it makes sense to me that there should be a gentle push towards taking a little bit of time to write a short wiki for the tag you just created.  By no means should this be mandatory, and the precise format of this gentle push is more in the scope of UX guys to think up, but I wanted to see how people felt about some kind of discreet notification.  I thought of two forms this notification could take:  Option 1 - at the time of tagging      Option 2 - after posting      Update: Raphael has suggested in the comments that this could be implemented as a 10K user tool.  While I think that's a good idea on its own, I don't think it should be used instead.  I think that encouraging users with less than 10K to complete wikis for their own tags is likely to get some wikis written because there is a sense of ownership over your own tag, and by giving it a wiki you are giving it a better start in life. As with a child, users will want to equip their tag with the tools it will need to survive in the big wide world. How does Ubuntu flavor iso differ from a desktop package? TL;DR: how does an Ubuntu flavor iso installation ( for example Lubuntu ) differ from installing a desktop package via apt-get ? (for instance sudo apt-get install lubuntu-desktop)  Context for the question:   Some time ago I answered a question on AskUbuntu , where I tested in virtual machine removing unity-desktop and installing ubuntu-gnome-desktop. That makes the boot logo ( plymouth ) change, desktop changes, different packages get installed (gnome-network-manager instead of network-manager , if I am not mistaken). It appeared that in effect I've switched to different Ubuntu flavor, even though I started out with the standard Ubuntu system. Hence the question: what differentiates the pre-made Ubuntu flavor iso from installing a package ? Is it all the same base underneath the hood or does installation from iso have specific configurations ? If it's possible to install a flavor via package manager, why then separate flavor iso's exist ? (obvious answer is user convenience, but I think there has to exist other reasons. Canonical is a business , and it makes not a lot of sense for a business to provide additional flavor iso , if a sysadmin or end-user can get the same thing via package manager by themselves). How can angular velocity be constant even when there is a torque by friction? A cylinder at rest lying on a rough ground is given an impulse which imparts a translational velocity (no angular velocity) to it. The question goes ahead with finding time after which rolling starts etc. etc.  But I have another question: The friction from the ground will decrease the translational velocity but increase the angular velocity (as the torque of friction will be in the direction of rolling). After some time, the translational velocity will become equal to angular velocity and hence pure rolling will start.  After this time work done by friction will be 0 as the point of contact is not moving and hence translational velocity will be constant. Now my doubt is that, when translational velocity is constant, it implies angular velocity will also be constant (as translational velocity is a multiple of angular velocity). But the torque from friction (about the centre of mass) will not be zero which means angular velocity will not be constant. In some book where there was the same problem it was written friction will vanish. How can friction vanish? How can anguluar velocity be constant even when there is a torque by friction? Past participle form of "exit"? Which one is the formula of angular velocity? Is it $\omega= vr$? If not then why does the source below use $mvr=nh/2\pi$, where $mvr$ is angular momentum and $vr$ is angular velocity? Again $\omega=v/r$ shows radian per second. I saw $\omega= vr$ in one book and $\omega= v/r$ in another! Gauss's law not making sense If we have a point charge and outside of it we have a non-conducting Gaussian sphere, then Gauss's law says that the net flux should be zero. I agree that the total field lines coming in are equal to the number of field lines coming out, but isn't it true that the magnitude of the electric field at those segments of the sphere where the field is coming in is greater than those where it is coming out? So when we integrate, wouldn't these areas, having a greater electric field, contribute more to the net flux? I don't see why they would cancel each other out. Excluding empty(Null) fields when using EntityFieldQuery query condition