i have lost my images by deleting them but now i want them back
Restore deleted photos
Launch app only if not already open What's the fixed size of the suggested edit queue? What's the deepest reason why QCD bound states have integer charge? What's the deepest reason why QCD bound states have integer electric charge, i.e. equal to an integer times the electron charge?  Given that the quarks have the fractional electric charges they do, this is a consequence of color confinement. The charges of the quarks are constrained in the context of the standard model by anomaly cancellation, and can be explained by grand unification. The GUT explanation for the charges doesn't care about the bound state spectrum of the QCD sector, so it just seems to be a coincidence that hadrons (which are composite) have integer charge, and that leptons (which are elementary) also have integer charge.   Now maybe there's some anthropic argument for why such a coincidence is useful (in the case of proton and electron, it gives us atoms as we know them). Or maybe you can argue that GUTs naturally produce fractionally charged particles and strongly coupled sectors, and it's just not much of a coincidence.   But I remain curious as to whether Seiberg duality, anyons, some UV/IR relationship... could really produce something like the lepton-hadron charge coincidence, for deeper reasons. I suppose one is looking for a theory in which properties of bound states in one sector have a direct and nontrivial relationship to properties of elementary states in another sector. Is there anything like this out there?   (This question was prompted by muster-mark's many recent questions about fractional charge, and by a  that the hadron-lepton charge coincidence is a "semi-coincidence", which assured me that I wasn't overlooking some obvious explanation.) Is it possible to have the dock in different positions in different desktop? Is it possible to have the dock in different positions in different desktops? In particular I'd like to change the settings between a normal desktop and a desktop where there's an app at full screen. In this way I'd keep the dock in lower side of the desktop when there's an app at full screen and vertically on the left side during normal use.  I have this problem that, sicne I usually have the dock vertically on the left, it pops out everytime i go to the far left in an app I'm using with full screen, and using this app I have to move the mouse to the left quite often. Proof of continuity of Thomae Function at irrationals. In :  $$ \begin{align} t(x) = \begin{cases} 0 &amp; \text{if $x$ is irrational}\\ \frac{1}{n} &amp; \text{if $x = \frac{m}{n}$ where $\gcd(m,n) = 1$} \end{cases} \end{align} $$  I can prove the discontinuity at rational $b$ by taking a sequence of irrationals $x_n$ which converge to $b$.   But while going through an argument for continuity at irrationals.  I found this in a book.      On the other hand if $b$ is an irrational number and $\epsilon &gt; 0$   then there is a     natural number $n_0$ such that $1/n_0 &lt; \epsilon$.   There are only finite number of rationals with denominator less than   $n_0$ in the interval $(b-1,b+1)$. Hence we can find a $\delta &gt; 0$   such that $\delta$ neighbourhood of $b$ contains no rational with   denominator less than $n_0$.   I understand the rest of the proof. But I am unable to prove the emphasized text. Although I find it intuitive. Appositives with possessiveness? I would like to say something like     The boy, Adam's, favorite toy was a bike.   What is the proper way to say this? Firefox: Downloading files with drag and drop How can I use wget to get files recursively if the username contains an @? Firstly my main goal is to try and get FTP files recursively in Centos.  However the actual FTP login contains an @ which ruins the syntax.  Is there some way to place the username in "double quotes" or some such equivalent such that I can use @in the username? find the number of injections/surjections I've been banging my head on this problem for some time now, and could really use help. Bear in mind I'm not very good at this sort of thing and am struggling to get by in class.  Problem:     Given $ \alpha : A \to B       \;\;\;\;\;   |A|=p \;\;\;\;|B|=q $      Find:         Number of Injections: $A \to B$   Number of Surjections: $ A \to B$    Prove that ∃ a bijection $A \to B$       $\Rightarrow$ p = q   find number of bijections: $A \to B$         I apologize for dropping such a big problem on you all, but I just can't get anywhere with this. Help?  EDIT: These answers are really helpful and I believe I've got down the number of Injections, but  we haven't gone through permutations or combinatorics in class so my understanding of it is really hamstrung. I'm unclear on the Stirling theorem as discussed here: , specifically the part where inclusion-exclusion comes into play. I'm not sure how to apply that, since right now I'm letting p = 4 and q = 3, so I don't know where inclusion-exclusion would be used (if at all!) since I don't know how elements would be missing. Should I always use the perfect present, when the sentence uses "never"? In my English classes, I was taught that never should not be used with past forms, only with present perfect forms; this is also what I read in a grammar book I bought some years ago. (I bought the book in the USA; I guess the book is about American English grammar, but I don't have any reason to believe there is any difference between American, and British English in this case.)  Is it correct to use never with the past tense?     I never said that.        I have never said that. How do I pass a function as a parameter to in elisp? I'm trying to pass one method to another in elisp, and then have that method execute it.  Here is an example:  (defun t1 ()   "t1")  (defun t2 ()   "t1")  (defun call-t (t)   ; how do I execute "t"?   (t))  ; How do I pass in method reference? (call-t 't1) Is it possible to make a sequence of renders and give the user the option to cancel the process through the UI at any given time? I'm trying to make a script where I have to render several images of the same scene at the same frame, and write to disk with appropriate names. The problem is that although this works fine with a non-responsive UI, it doesn't work well when the render progress appears in the Blender UI.  I mean,  bpy.ops.render.render()   uses "EXEC_DEFAULT" when called from a script. This leaves a blocked User Interface until the render finishes, meaning that you can't cancel the process, except by killing Blender. The problem is that the render may be too big in resolution, and the user could want to stop the process when realizing that the render could take hours, so the idea is to cancel this process without losing the currently opened project.  If I call,  bpy.ops.render.render("INVOKE_DEFAULT")   I get a nice preview bar in the Info Window with a clickable "X" button. I want the user to be able to press that button to cancel the operation if needed, but for a series of renders (not animation).  The problem here seems to be when trying to loop this command with the INVOKE_DEFAULT context to write several renders. I made a lot of testing, and this way of calling the render operator seems to continue with whatever is next in the script, so it loops very fast and ends before the rendering actually finishes.  I think that I need some way to stop the script and make it wait until render finishes to continue looping with the next ones. I tried the "render_complete" and "render_cancel" handlers, but I can't use them to start a new render or even make the rest of the script wait until the loop of renders is complete. I tried threading and events without success either. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.  import bpy  render = bpy.context.scene.render path = render.filepath = "/tmp/" shots = ["one", "two", "three"]  for x in shots:     render.filepath = path + x     bpy.ops.render.render("INVOKE_DEFAULT", write_still=True) # this doesn't work      # but if I use:     # bpy.ops.render.render(write_still=True)     # without the INVOKE thing, images are written as expected,     # but losing the possibility to see the progress and cancel rendering There is some conflict or error I don't understand. I can skip it and nothing visible happens. The output is okay and everything seems to be fine. Still I would like to get rid of the error message. If I run the following minimal example:   \documentclass[]{scrbook}  \usepackage[applemac, grafiken]{tahbiblatex} \usepackage[ngerman]{babel}   \begin{document}  Testing äüöaüä.  \end{document}   I get the error message:      ! Missing = inserted for \ifnum. &lt;to be read again&gt;                     , l.4 \usepackage                [ngerman]{babel} ?  ! Missing number, treated as zero. &lt;to be read again&gt;                     , l.4 \usepackage                [ngerman]{babel}   Here is my .sty file:  \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}\relax \ProvidesPackage{tahbiblatex}[2012, by tah modified by sm]  \RequirePackage{ifthen}  \DeclareOption{latin1}{\PassOptionsToPackage{\CurrentOption}{inputenc}} \DeclareOption{applemac}{\PassOptionsToPackage{\CurrentOption}{inputenc}} \DeclareOption{cp850}{\PassOptionsToPackage{\CurrentOption}{inputenc}} \DeclareOption{utf8}{\PassOptionsToPackage{\CurrentOption}{inputenc}}  \DeclareOption{dvi}{% \newif\ifpdf \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined     \pdffalse \else     \pdfoutput=0     \pdftrue \fi}  \newcounter{Grafiken}\setcounter{Grafiken}{0} \DeclareOption{grafiken}{\setcounter{Grafiken}{1}}  \newcounter{Randausgleich}\setcounter{Randausgleich}{0} \DeclareOption{randausgleich}{\setcounter{Randausgleich}{1}}  \newcounter{Tabellen}\setcounter{Tabellen}{0} \DeclareOption{tabellen}{\setcounter{Tabellen}{1}}  \newcounter{Sync}\setcounter{Sync}{0} \DeclareOption{sync}{\setcounter{Sync}{1}}  \ProcessOptions  \RequirePackage{fixltx2e} \RequirePackage{inputenc} \RequirePackage[T1]{fontenc} \RequirePackage[T1]{url} \RequirePackage{setspace} %\RequirePackage[german]{varioref} \RequirePackage{textcomp}  \newcommand{\urlangabe}[2]{% $\langle$\url{#1}$\rangle$ -- Zugriff am #2}  \def\hierlockern {\begingroup \def\par{\endgraf\endgroup}%   \tolerance 1414%   \hbadness 1414%   \emergencystretch 1.5em%   \hfuzz 0.3pt%   \vfuzz \hfuzz%   \raggedbottom% }  \newcommand{\alleslockern}{%   \tolerance 1414%   \hbadness 1414%   \emergencystretch 1.5em%   \hfuzz 0.3pt%   \vfuzz \hfuzz%   \raggedbottom% } \ifthenelse{\value{Grafiken}=1}   {   \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined \newcount\pdfoutput \fi   \ifcase\pdfoutput       \RequirePackage[dvips]{graphicx}       \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.eps}       \typeout{Paket tah Meldung: Die Option `grafiken' fuer DVI wurde gewaehlt.}% \else     \RequirePackage[pdftex]{graphicx}     \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.jpg,.tif,.png,.pdf}     \typeout{Paket tah Meldung: Die Option `grafiken' fuer PDF wurde gewaehlt.}%   \fi}   {}  \ifthenelse{\value{Sync}=1}   {     \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined \newcount\pdfoutput \fi     \ifcase\pdfoutput     \RequirePackage{srcltx}     \typeout{Paket tah Meldung: Die Option `sync' fuer DVI wurde gewaehlt.}%     \else     \RequirePackage{pdfsync}     \typeout{Paket tah Meldung: Die Option `sync' fuer PDF wurde gewaehlt.}%     \fi }   {}   \ifthenelse{\value{Randausgleich}=1}   {\typeout{Paket tah Meldung: Die Option `randausgleich' wurde gewaehlt.}%   \RequirePackage[activate]{pdfcprot}}   {}  \ifthenelse{\value{Tabellen}=1}   {\typeout{Paket tah Meldung: Die Option `tabellen' wurde gewaehlt.}%   \RequirePackage{tabularx}   \RequirePackage{ragged2e}   \RequirePackage{dcolumn}   \RequirePackage{booktabs}   \newcolumntype{L}{&gt;{\RaggedRight\hspace{0pt}\arraybackslash}l}   \newcolumntype{Y}{&gt;{\RaggedRight\hspace{0pt}\arraybackslash}X}   \newcolumntype{d}[1]{&gt;{\DC@{.}{,}{#1}}l&lt;{\DC@end}}   }   {}    \endinput   I also don't really need all the features. So it would be nice to reduce it to minimal features, which are needed.. Story about main character with regeneration powers I read a book 10+ years ago where the world was ruled by various factions, each one had a special ability of some sort. The main characters faction had regenerative ability. Another faction had the ability to speed up or slow down time. I am not sure of the plot, but I know at one point he is injured so badly he starts growing a clone which he attempts to kill, but comes back later in the story.    Any ideas? Terence Tao, Analysis I, Ex. 5.5.2: Entry point needed I have a random sample of Bernoulli random variables $X_1 ... X_N$, where $X_i$ are i.i.d. r.v. and $P(X_i = 1) = p$, and $p$ is an unknown parameter.  Obviously, one can find an estimate for $p$: $\hat{p}:=(X_1+\dots+X_N)/N$.  My question is how can I build a confidence interval for $p$? Since  from other SE sites and is not thought to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness, but only to express agreement or disagreement, I'm wondering why downvoted answers here on meta are shown semi-transparent.  Shouldn't they be non-transparent then (like upvoted answers)?  Or am I missing something? Using trickle to limit the bandwidth of a VirtualBox VM I'm trying to limit the bandwidth of a virtual machine running via VirtualBox.   trickle -d 5 virtualbox doesn't work, I believe because of an issue with child processes (trickle -d 5 sudo apt-get upgrade doesn't work either)  How can I limit the download/upload bandwidth of VirtualBox's VMs? Is God either immoral or not omnipotent? The usual (Christian) justification for suffering/evil in the world created by a benevolent God is freedom of the will. However, the more interesting question is not about the source of evil (which the free will may very well be) but why God chose to create the world such as it is. Why not create a world with freedom of the will, but without suffering? Even assuming that God is bound by logic such combination doesn't seem to be logically impossible: creatures certainly can do good of their own free will. There are two alternatives.  1) God is powerful enough for all practical intents and purposes, enough to be called God, but not omnipotent. He created only the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz). This position is perhaps the most defensible philosophically, it also avoids logical problems with , etc., but it does diminish deity's status and invites unpleasant questions like what limits God (logic only, inert matter, outer chaos, other beings), is there someone/thing more powerful, etc.    Interestingly enough, the original Christian theodicy wasn't free will. St.Augustine says poetically "the canvas of creation requires both the black and the white paint". "Requires" here can be interpreted differently,  is to explain the black by the "just punishment" for the original sin, which brings us to Adam and Eve, and back to the free will. But if God is still omnipotent and hence omniscient creating creatures he knew would sin, and then punishing them for it is hardly an improvement.   2) However, Augustine can be read more straightforwardly. Evil is "required" for the perfection of the world just like black paint is required for the perfection of a painting (evil can be interpreted as lack of good rather than something onto itself but that is beside the point). God is immoral, and he is beyond our conception of morality, his notion of perfection is his own. This is much bolder, and similar to Plotinus's position on the existence of the One, the One can not exist because it is "prior to all existence". But it does evoke the unpleasant taste of "ends justify the means". It is one thing to use "God is beyond our logic and comprehension" to get rid of unliftable stones, it is quite another to convince people to worship an immoral perfectionist.  Formally, there is another logical possibility of asserting both morality and omnipotence, but defending the morality of creating a world full of suffering, for a higher purpose perhaps. For example, the suffering only appears bad to us, not to an absolute being in its wisdom. But this simply redefines morality and is only different in phraseology from the Augustine's position. The question is asked in human terms and has to be answered in kind. One is free to argue that God is beyond human logic and/or morality, but it still leaves him immoral as commonly understood.   There does not appear to be a way to square this circle, one has to accept Leibniz's or Augustine's alternative (or both) and deal with the downsides. Option 2) looks more consistent, but it is rarely embraced, at least not openly. Perhaps, for "public relations" reasons it is more attractive to dismiss the question with something like "this is beyond us" or change the subject to the free will.      What are the modern theological positions on the morality/omnipotence in catholisism, protestantism, etc.? Is the question relevant to other religions?   EDIT: I am not sure that it came through but by immoral I did not mean morally deficient or evil. Rather at the God's plane of being morality becomes meaningless, like tastes or smells are meaningless when applied to elementary particles. vinegar pickles safety