Why doesn"t centrifugal force throw us off the earth?
Why don't we consider centrifugal force on a mass placed on earth?
Evaluating $\int \sqrt{1 + t^2} dt$? How do we solve (i.e. get the closed form of) $\int \sqrt{1 + t^2} dt$ ?   shows the closed form of it but not the steps in solving it.  I think I need some algebraic trick..   I thought of some hyperbolic functions and their derivatives and equalities:  If I make $ t = \sinh x$, then I can reduce the integral to  $$ \int \cosh ^2 x dx $$ though I'm not sure if this is valid. But from here, I cannot go on evaluating the integral... A question about $f(x)\equiv 0$ Radiation– white vs black house, hot or cool? In my book's thermodynamics chapter, it says that an      "object that radiates heat faster also absorbs heat faster. This means   that an object that is a more efficient radiator comes to equilibrium   with its environment more quickly. With this in mind, is it better to   paint your house black or white?"   I am confused which it would be. The book says white because      "in summer, you house is cooler than the environment and white   reflects away the heat. In winter your house is warmer than the   environment and white radiates away the heat" How do you get the root namespace of an assembly? Given an instance of System.Reflection.Assembly. Best way to clone an installation (copying to identical hardware) Kind-of like  but slightly different (I think), in that I have 6 identical Acer Aspire Revo R3610 machines. One is (almost) configured to my requirements - when I'm done preparing it I'd like to make the other 5 machines absolutely the same. I'm very new to Ubuntu, what's the most straightforward (easiest) way of doing this?  The machines are going to live on different networks if that might otherwise be a problem (eg with Windows you can clone disks but you then have to make registry changes afterwards if they're going to run on the same network etc). The hardware in all 6 machines is, I stress, the same!  How can I efficiently clone one source image on to these identical machines?  Please restrict one software/solution per answer Why is this sequence of functions not uniformly convergent? For the following sequence of functions and its limit function, we can see that $f_n(x)$ is clearly pointwise convergent  $$f_n(x) = x^n\text{ }\forall x\in[0,1]\text{ and }\forall n\in\mathbb N^*\\ f(x) = \begin{cases}0&amp;\text{if } x\in[0,1)\\1&amp;\text{if } x=1\end{cases}$$  However, I was wondering why this is not uniformly convergent. The condition for uniform convergence is:  $$|f_n(x) - f(x)| &lt; \epsilon,\ \ \ \forall x \text{ when } n &gt; N$$  Now most sources present an argument along the lines of: assume that $f_n(x)$ is uniformly convergent and that $0 &lt; x &lt; 1$, this means that $x^n&lt;\epsilon$ whenever $n&gt;N$. Specifically, this would mean $x^{N+1}&lt;\epsilon$ for some fixed $N$. But if we now pick $x$ such that $1 &gt; x &gt; ε^{\frac{1}{N+1}}$, then this would lead to a contradiction, therefore $f_n(x)$ is not uniformly convergent.  However, I was wondering why couldn't we take $n$ to infinity. If $0 &lt; x &lt; 1$, then $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} |f_n(x) - f(x)| = 0$ (which is less than $\epsilon$). Now since $|f_n(x) - f(x)|$ will always be $0$ if $n &gt; \infty$, then wouldn't this be uniformly convergent? Here at the Genealogy and Family History Stack Exchange we see many questions about relationship mapping which is also known as:   relationship calculation kinship terminology etc   If you are just trying to understand how to calculate "cousins and removes" then  provides an excellent guide.  However, if you are seeking an English term for a more complicated relationship between two members of an extended family, rather than asking a question like:          site users are encouraged to first review the answers below.    Note: This Q&amp;A arises from  and is set to  to help make it canonical. How can I get ssh-agent working over ssh and in tmux (on OS X)? I have a private key set up for my github account, the passphrase to which is, I believe, stored in OS X's keychain. I certainly don't have to type it in when I open a terminal window and enter ssh git@github.com.  However, when I'm running bash over an ssh session, or locally inside a tmux session, I have to type in the passphrase every single time I attempt to ssh to github.   suggests that a similar problem exists with screen, but I don't really understand the issue well enough to fix it in tmux. There's also  which includes a fairly complicated solution, but for zsh.  EDIT:  In response to , from a local terminal I get the following output:  [~] $ echo $SSH_AUTH_SOCK /tmp/launch-S4HBD6/Listeners [~]  $ ssh-add -l 2048 [my key fingerprint] /Users/richie/.ssh/id_rsa (RSA) [~] $ typeset -p SSH_AUTH_SOCK declare -x SSH_AUTH_SOCK="/tmp/launch-S4HBD6/Listeners"   Whereas over ssh or in tmux I get:  [~] $ echo $SSH_AUTH_SOCK  [~] $ ssh-add -l Could not open a connection to your authentication agent. [~] $ typeset -p SSH_AUTH_SOCK bash: typeset: SSH_AUTH_SOCK: not found   echo $SSH_AGENT_PID returns nothing whatever shell I run it from. Can a Dungeons and Dragons 4e character take D&D Essentials feats? In Heroes of the Fallen Lands many of the core feats have been streamlined, some paragon feats have become available to all levels.  Before that feats were tiered by level: heroic, paragon, epic.  Can a character that was made before the Heroes of the Fallen Lands publication use Heroes of the Fallen Lands feats? Every time I try update (using sudo apt-get update) my Ubuntu I get this problem:  W: The repository 'cdrom://Ubuntu 16.04 LTS _Xenial Xerus_ - Release amd64 (20160420.1) xenial Release' does not have a Release file. N: Data from such a repository can't be authenticated and is therefore potentially dangerous to use. N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details. W: The repository 'ppa.launchpad.net/kirillshkrogalev/ffmpeg-next/ubuntu xenial Release' does not have a Release file. N: Data from such a repository can't be authenticated and is therefore potentially dangerous to use. N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details. E: Failed to fetch cdrom://Ubuntu 16.04 LTS _Xenial Xerus_ - Release amd64 (20160420.1)/dists/xenial/main/binary-amd64/Packages  Please use apt-cdrom to make this CD-ROM recognized by APT. apt-get update cannot be used to add new CD-ROMs E: Failed to fetch cdrom://Ubuntu 16.04 LTS _Xenial Xerus_ - Release amd64 (20160420.1)/dists/xenial/main/binary-i386/Packages  Please use apt-cdrom to make this CD-ROM recognized by APT. apt-get update cannot be used to add new CD-ROMs E: Failed to fetch ppa.launchpad.net/kirillshkrogalev/ffmpeg-next/ubuntu/dists/xenial/main/binary-amd64/Packages  404  Not Found E: Failed to fetch ppa.launchpad.net/kirillshkrogalev/ffmpeg-next/ubuntu/dists/xenial/main/binary-i386/Packages  404  Not Found E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead.   How can I fix it? I use Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Generating data with a given sample covariance matrix How to redirect standard output to multiple log files? The following does not work:  some_command 1&gt; output_log_1 output_log_2 2&gt;&amp;1 With a Canon 550D camera and a Tamron 18-270 mm zoom lens, I tried to fix shutter time, aperture (f/8.0 to cover all zoom range), and ISO, so the exposure meter read 0.0 with 18 mm focal length and while focusing on a uniform white wall.  Then I changed to 270 mm focal length, but the exposure reading did not change significantly (only to -0.7).  However, I had expected exposure to change, since only (18 mm / 270 mm) ** 2 = 1/225 of the wall is now covered in compare the coverage when focal length is 18 mm, thus only 1/225 of the light gets to the sensor after the change of focal length.  Why does exposure not change when narrowing the field of view with change of focal length? If $|G/H|=4$ then $G$ is union of three proper subgroups Let $G$ be a finite group and $N$ a normal subgroup of $G$ of index $4$. Prove that $G$ has a subgroup of index $2$ (hence normal) and if $G/H$ is not cyclic then $G$ is equal to the union of three proper subgroups.   I understand that $G/H$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_4$ or $\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2$. Let $K^*$ be a subgroup of $G/H$ of order $2$. Then $K^*\cong K/H$ for some $K$ such that $H$ is normal in $K$ and hence $[G:K]=[G/H:K/H]=4/2=2$.  If $G/H$ is not cyclic then $G/H\cong \mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2$. I don't know how to prove $G$ is the union of three subgroups. Could it be true that as $G/H$ is the union of three proper subgroups $K_1^*,K_2^*,K_3^*$ then the corresponding groups $K_1,K_2,K_3$ have union equal to $G$? Would anyone give me a hint to prove this?  Thank you. launch sms application with an intent What are the rules of parallelism? I've been reading a lot about it since yesterday and all I encounter is "They must have the same grammatical form"? What does this exactly mean?  I know how to make parallel sentences with gerunds. The things get trickier when it comes to using modifiers.  For example:     I love using the phone that you bought me and the computer.   On the left side of the conjunction there is a noun phrase that consists of an article + noun + another modifier and on the right side there is an article + noun.  They are both noun phrases but the first one has additional modifier. Is that still considered a parallel sentence?  Another example:     I like to swim and to feel good.   Here on the right side of the conjunction there is an infinitive and on the left side there is an infinitive + complement? Is that parallel? I have four competing models which I use to predict a binary outcome variable (say, employment status after graduating, 1 = employed, 0 = not-employed) for n subjects. A natural metric of model performance is hit rate which is the percentage of correct predictions for each one of the models.   It seems to me that I cannot use ANOVA in this setting as the data violates the assumptions underlying ANOVA. Is there an equivalent procedure I could use instead of ANOVA in the above setting to test for the hypothesis that all four models are equally effective? Does a finite $[E:K]_s$ imply that $[E_s:K]$ is finite? Let $E/K$ be an algebraic extension of fields and denote by $E_s$ the separable closure of $K$ in $E$, i.e. the set of all elements of $E$ that are separable over $K$ (which can be shown is a (separable) subfield of $E$).  I would like to show that the implication     $\left[E:K\right]_s &lt; \infty \implies \left[E_s:K\right] &lt; \infty$   holds, where $\left[E:K\right]_s$ denotes the separable degree of $E/K$ and $\left[E_s:K\right]$ the 'ordinary' degree of $E_s/K$.  In the textbook I am learning with, it is said that one could use the Primitive Element Theorem to do this, but I would also be fine with any other approach, as long as it's not getting too fancy and staying in the realm of 'common' textbook theorems known when dealing with separable extensions (and I didn't see how the Primitive Element Theorem would help).  This is not my focus (I want to write a Bachelor's thesis about polynomial factorizing elements of $\mathbb{Z}[X]$), but I'm in the process of reading into commutative algebra after about 1.5 years break from it.  My idea was something like assuming $\left[E_s:K\right] &lt; \infty$ and $\left[E_s:K\right] = \infty$ to construct infinitely many $K$-homomorphisms $E_s/K \longrightarrow C/K$, where $C$ is some algebraic closure of $E_s$, which would then contradict $\left[E_s:K\right]_s = \left[E_s:K\right] &lt; \infty$. Of course, an infinite basis would yield infinitely many $K$-vector space homomorphisms, but getting (infinitely many) ring morphisms seems to by an entirely different ting (unsurprisingly so...). Thought of using something like     Given two roots of the minimal polynomial of one of the infinitely many elements of a $K$-basis of $E_s/K$, there is a $K$-morphism $E_s/K \longrightarrow C/K$ that sends one to the other.   but this didn't seem very fruitful. I admit I haven't spent hours on this, I just didn't get very far and should focus on moving on, while still getting an answer on the 'howto' along the road would be really nice. explicit formula for recurrence relation $a_{n+1}=2a_n+\frac{1}{a_n}$ For $n\in\mathbb N$, $$a_{n+1}=2a_n+\frac{1}{a_n},\quad a_1=1. $$ Can any one give an explicit formula for all $a_n$? If such an explicit general formula doesn't exist, please explain it. I've tried to figure out the $n$-iterated function $f^{(n)}$ where $f(x)=2x+1/x$ or even $f(\tan(t))$. But in either cases, I failed.Since the recurrence isn't linear nor homogeneous,the generating function method doesn't apply here. Water Wars: Time Travel TV Show?