Function Overriding not working in c++
What is object slicing?
Improving Review Queues - Design overview II: Changing review bans and other new features This is one of three project announcements for Improving Review Queues. We’ve summarized the project objectives and goals . As a reminder, this project is still in the . In this post, we are sharing proposed changes to review bans and other new features. We are asking for your feedback before we begin implementation. After we collect community feedback, we will be open to including changes into the next design iteration. Suspension of privileges  Most users learn how to be good reviewers by actually reviewing posts, but sometimes find themselves making wrong decisions. This can lead to a less than obvious suspension of privileges, with too little guidance as to what they did wrong and how they can improve in the future. In the event of a suspension, a user will be notified in the Review Queue dropdown. A post notification will be available with reason and time remaining on the Review Queue main page, along with guidance for continued learning in this area. We’re also proposing softening the language by renaming “review bans” to “review suspensions.” Open questions:  Do you have suggestions of other ways we can notify reviewers of a ban? What information would be most helpful to you in this situation?  New features  My tasks We’re considering introducing a new, additional workflow and means of task discovery. My Tasks is a curated experience that’s currently based on your Watched Tags. This page includes an overview of pending tasks that may require more immediate attention or pique interest in a user’s subject-matter expertise.  Queue filtering We’d also like to add more useful, robust filtering options on all queues. Right now, the filter function is difficult to discover. We want to make this feature more noticeable and add queue-specific options. For example, you will be able to filter by your Watched Tags and sort tasks that are soon to expire out of each queue. Badges Currently, the gold Steward badge is awarded once at 1,000 reviews per queue regardless of whether you’ve performed 1,000 or 10,000 reviews. We propose that reviewers can now earn this badge multiple times, adding more opportunities to earn badges while reviewing - this change is intended to be retroactive. Open questions:  How would you want to be able to customize in My Tasks? Are there other review-centric badges you would like to see added?  In case you missed it... We propose changes to Onboarding and Updated workflows/pathways here: . I know many master's students who get an opportunity to talk to their potential PhD advisors well before applying. In most cases this opportunity is available by the professors with whom they worked for their master's. Moreover, there are many others who establish a contact with professors by mailing them and enquiring about PhD vacancies.   My questions are:   How important is knowing an advisor prior to applying for PhD?  Does an email interaction play a vital role when the department makes its admit decisions? If email contact is important, can a student send out mails to 2-3 professors (working in the same area) in case one of them does not bother to reply? To sum up, is applying of any use (especially in top universities) when you have no contacts and only your credentials to bank on? has a weird case of the mono, while .  Also, that question is missing some content at the end: Never delete entries? Good idea? Usual? $C \otimes A \cong C \otimes B$ does not imply $A \cong B$ Let $R$ be a commutative unital ring and let $M$ be an $R$-module and let $S$ be a multiplicative subset of $R$.  Today I proved both of the following: $$ S^{-1} R\otimes_R S^{-1}M \cong S^{-1} M$$ and $$ S^{-1} R \otimes M \cong S^{-1} M$$  Now I'm slightly confused.      Either my proofs are wrong or $C \otimes A \cong C \otimes B$ does not imply $A \cong B$. But I can't come up with an example. Can someone give me an example? (Or tell me that my proofs are wrong.) Can I use a variable which has a non-linear relationship to the dependent variable in logistic regression? Let's say I am building a logistic regression model where the dependent variable is binary and can take the values $0$ or $1$. Let the independent variables be $x_1, x_2, ..., x_m$ - there are $m$ independent variables. Let's say for the $k$th independent variable, the bivariate analysis shows a U-shaped trend - i.e., if I group $x_k$ into $20$ bins each containing roughly equal number of observations and calculate the 'bad rate' for each bin - # observations where y = 0 / total observations in each bin - then I get a U shaped curve.  My questions are:   Can I directly use $x_k$ as input while estimating the beta parameters? Are any statistical assumptions violated which might cause significant error in estimating the parameters? Is it necessary to 'linearize' this variable through a transformation (log, square, product with itself, etc.)? I have Canon lenses and would like to purchase an adapter to use them on the D3200? Is there one available? If so name and model would be appericated. I understand that I will have to shoot on manual mode. If we disbelieve $H_0$, why quote a p value calculated assuming $H_0$ was true? Hypothesis testing seeks to reject a null hypothesis ($H_0$) on the basis of an assumption made about the sample following a certain distribution. This assumption is conditional on $H_0$ being true. So what is the flaw with the following reasoning?     If I reject $H_0$ in favor of the alternative hypothesis ($H_1$), I   must then assume that (1) $H_1$ is true, and (2) that at the   same time the variable under examination follows the distribution   used to reject $H_0$. Since we also stated that the assumed   distribution is conditional on $H_0$ being true, it appears that $H_0$   has got to be true in order to justify the assumption made about the   distribution. Logically, it would therefore seem that both $H_0$ and   $H_1$ have to be true, which is a paradox, because they are mutually   exclusive! Is there any difference between "offense" and "offence"? "Offense" vs. "offence", which is more correct? If both are correct, are there any differences in shades of meaning and/or usage? The new software center in Ubuntu 16.04 shows no application data found This is the error I get when I open the software center. I've tried rebooting and running sudo apt-get update but I see no improvement. It worked earlier but I don't know what went wrong since then. I'm using Ubuntu 16.04 final release on a Dell Inspiron 15R. Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.  EDIT: The problem magically solved itself without me doing anything special (or maybe inadvertently doing something, I don't know). So I'd still like to get to the root of this. I am getting a NoClassDefFoundError when I run my Java application.  What is typically the cause of this? What is a decoupling capacitor and how do I know if I need one? What is a decoupling capacitor (or smoothing capacitor as referred to in the link below)?  How do I know if I need one and if so, what size and where it needs to go?    mentions many chips needing one between VCC and GND; how do I know if a specific chip is one?   Would an  4-bit parallel access shift register used with an Arduino need one? (To use my current project as an example) Why or why not?  I feel like I'm starting to understand the basics of resistors and some places they're used, what values should be used in said places, etc, and I'd like to understand capacitors at the basic level as well. Selecting the size of a System.Drawing.Icon? I need to show that $\sqrt{2}$, $\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}$, $\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}},\ldots$ converges and find the limit.   I started by defining the sequence by $x_1=\sqrt{2}$ and then $x_{n+1}=\sqrt{2+x_n}$. Then I proved by induction that the sequence is increasing and that it is bounded. Then I use the Monotone Convergence Theorem to prove that it converges.  Now, I claim that the limit of the sequence is $2$. So I need to show that for all $\epsilon&gt;0$, there exists $N$ such that for all $n\geq N$ we have $|x_n-2| &lt; \epsilon$. This is kind of where I'm stuck. I don't know how to proceed to prove the convergence to $2$. I just learned that using CBC encryption with an IV which is predictable is not secure.  From what I understand, using certain plain texts, and then guessing the IV that it uses, the attacker can verify if the IV he guessed was right. How does this qualify as an attack? Is it ethical to use a textbook required for a class that was easily found online? In PHP, is there an easy way to convert a number to a word? For instance, 27 to twenty-seven. String manipulation with & or + in VB.NET Proving a simple graph is a connected graph Does any proof exist that a simple graph with $n$ vertices such that the least vertex degree is $\geq \frac{n-1}{2}$ is a connected graph? (i.e. does such a proof have a name?) Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity? The common understanding is that, setting air resistance aside, all objects dropped to Earth fall at the same rate. This is often demonstrated through the thought experiment of cutting a large object in half. The halves clearly can't then fall more slowly just by being sliced in two.  However, I believe the answer is that when two objects fall together, attached or not, they do "fall" faster than an object of less mass alone does. This is because not only does the Earth accelerate the objects toward itself but the objects also accelerate the Earth toward themselves. Considering the formula: $$ F_{\text{g}} = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{d^2} $$  Given $F = ma$ thus $a = F/m$, we note that the mass of the small object doesn't seem to matter as when calculating acceleration the force is divided by the $m$ term, its mass. However, this overlooks that the force is actually applied to both objects, not just to the smaller one. The acceleration on the second, larger object is found by dividing $F$, in turn, by the larger object's mass. The two objects' acceleration vectors are exactly opposite, so closing acceleration is the sum of the two:  $$ a_{\text{closing}} = \frac{F}{m_1} + \frac{F}{m_2} $$  Since the Earth is extremely massive compared to everyday objects, the acceleration imparted on the object by the Earth will radically dominate the equation. As the Earth is $\sim 5.972 \times {10}^{24} \, \mathrm{kg} ,$ a falling object of $5.972 \, \mathrm{kg}$ (just over 13 pounds) would accelerate the Earth about $\frac{1}{{10}^{24}}$ as much, which is one part in a trillion trillion.  Of course in everyday situations, we can for all practical purposes treat objects as falling at the same rate because of this negligible difference—which our instruments probably couldn't even detect. But I'm hoping not for a discussion of practicality or what's measurable or observable, but what we think is actually happening.  Am I right or wrong?  What really clinched this for me was considering dropping a small Moon-massed object close to the Earth and a small Earth-massed object close to the Moon. This made me realize that falling isn't one object moving toward some fixed frame of reference, but that the Earth is just another object, and thus "falling" consists of multiple objects mutually attracting in space.