How to control the dimensions of \colorbox
Height of colorbox
SQL Query; Admin Log System; Foreign Keys; Retriving multiple rows form different tables at once Table A (users)  id     | name   | ip 52433    Yashas   1.1.1.1 512      Admin    5.6.7.8   Table B (admin_record)  id    | admin | time    | date    | reason | action  52433   512     2312352   1213213   Test     WARN   id is FOREIGN key  Table B keeps a log of all actions an administrator takes on his users. And the table A stores the account information of the users &amp; administrators.  I am trying to display a list of actions taken by a administrators on a user.   I want to write a query which gets me all the rows of table B where id = fixed number.  Here is what I want to display:  "Administrator1 [Name]" took action on "User Name" for "[Note]" on XX/XX/XXXX. "Administrator2 [Name]" took action on "User Name" for "[Note]" on XX/XX/XXXX. "Administrator3 [Name]" took action on "User Name" for "[Note]" on XX/XX/XXXX.   All I have is the user's id using which I need to obtain all the entries in the log along with the administrator names. I need to obtain the admin's name, users name and all the contents of table B related to a particular user in one single query. If possible, I want the to change the field name(not literally change, but want the SQL server to send the data with new field names to separate admin name &amp; user name) of the admin's name to admin_name and user's name as . I mean something like this  SELECT users.name AS admin_name WHERE users.id = %i  AND SELECT users.name AS user_name WHERE users.id = %i   (the query isn't correct,it us just an example to show what I am trying)  Progress so far:   SELECT player.name, player.ip, admin.name, record.date, record.time, record.action, record.reason FROM admin_record AS record JOIN users AS player ON player.id = record.id JOIN users AS admin ON admin.id = record.admin WHERE player.id=%i   where admin_record is table B &amp; users is table A. I make homemade cayenne pepper sauce every year. I do add some liquid pectin to slightly thicken it so it will stick to food rather than roll off. After a month or so on the shelf it seems to separate a bit. What can I add to this so that it won't or is there a method I can do to stop this. We are slowly working our way into marketing this product down the line and this won't work for that reason. We are using a water bath canning method, vinegar based, no sugar added. I know that the derivative of the inverse function of $f(x)$ is $g'(y) = \frac{1}{f'(x)}$ But how to derive the formula for the second derivative of g(y) knowing that $\left[\frac{1}{f(x)}\right]' = -\frac{f'(x)}{(f(x))^2}$ ?  I just started studying this chapter, so please try to be as simple as possible ;-) Thank you. php--glob for searching directories and .jpg only Why does Linux require that a user be root/using sudo/specifically authorized per mount in order to mount something? It seems like the decision as to whether to allow a user to mount something should be based on their access rights to the source volume/network share and to the mount point. A couple of uses for non-root mounting are mounting file-system images to a user owned direction and mounting a network share to a user owned directory. It seems like if the user has control over both sides of the mount equation everything should be cool.  Clarification of access restriction:  I feel I should be able to mount anything that the user otherwise would have access to to a mount-point that the user is the owner of.  For instance, on my computer /dev/sda1 is owned by user root and group disk with permissions brw-rw----. Therefore non-root users can't mess with /dev/sda1 and clearly mount shouldn't allow them to mount it. However if the user owns /home/my_user/my_imagefile.img and mount point /home/my_user/my_image/ why shouldn't they be able to mount that image file on that mount point with:  mount /home/my_user/my_imagefile.img /home/my_user/my_image/ -o loop   As kormac pointed out there is a suid problem. So some restrictions would have to be added to prevent suid from being a problem as well as potentially some other issues. Perhaps one way to do this would be to make the OS treat all files as belonging to the user that did the mounting. However for simple read/write/execute, I don't see why this would be a problem.  Use case:  I have an account in a lab where my home space is restricted to 8GB. This is tiny and very very annoying. I would like to mount an nfs volume from my personal server to essentially increase the amount of room that I have. However, because Linux does not allow such things I'm stuck with scp'ing files back and forth to stay under the 8GB limit. I have a huge text file (~1GB) and sadly the text editor I use won't read such a large file.  However, if I can just split it into two or three parts I'll be fine, so, as an exercise I wanted to write a program in python to do it.    What I think I want the program to do is to find the size of a file, divide that number into parts, and for each part, read up to that point in chunks, writing to a filename.nnn output file, then read up-to the next line-break and write that, then close the output file, etc.  Obviously the last output file just copies to the end of the input file.  Can you help me with the key filesystem related parts: filesize, reading and writing in chunks and reading to a line-break?  I'll be writing this code test-first, so there's no need to give me a complete answer, unless its a one-liner ;-) For random variable $X$ that follows some distribution, $f(x)$ is the probability density function of that distribution if and only if $$\mathbb{E}[\phi(X)] = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi(x) f(x)dx$$ for all functions $\phi$.  Context: My professor used this in lecture to demonstrate a way to find the distribution of $cX$ given random variable $X$ that follows a specific distribution.   What is the name of this theorem? Have I missed any qualifications/caveats? I am in particular curious about whether "for all functions" is correct. My professor mentioned "positive, bounded, deterministic functions," but I am not sure what he meant by that. Where can I find a proof of this theorem? I wish to print a Stack&lt;Integer&gt; object as nicely as the Eclipse debugger does (i.e. [1,2,3...]) but printing it with out = "output:" + stack doesn't return this nice result.  Just to clarify, I'm talking about Java's built-in collection so I can't override its toString().  How can I get a nice printable version of the stack? Evaluating $\int\limits_0^{\pi} \frac{dx}{1+2\sin^2x}$ After making u substitution two times, I am getting indefinite integral as $$\int\limits\dfrac{dx}{1+2\sin^2x} = \dfrac{\arctan(\sqrt{3}\tan(x))}{\sqrt{3}}+ C$$  I am stuck at working the bounds because I am getting $0$ but the answer needs to be $\pi/\sqrt{3}$.  I think $\arctan(x)$ is defined in $-\pi/2 \lt x\lt\pi/2$ while making u substitution. However I don't see how to use this observation to my advantage. Can anybody help in getting the answer and understanding whats going on. Thanks ! In statistical learning, implicitly or explicitly, one always assumes that the training set $\mathcal{D} = \{ \bf {X}, \bf{y} \}$ is composed of $N$ input/response tuples $({\bf{X}}_i,y_i)$ that are independently drawn from the same joint distribution $\mathbb{P}({\bf{X}},y)$ with  $$ p({\bf{X}},y) = p( y \vert {\bf{X}}) p({\bf{X}}) $$  and $p( y \vert {\bf{X}})$ the relationship we are trying to capture through a particular learning algorithm. Mathematically, this i.i.d. assumption writes:  \begin{gather} ({\bf{X}}_i,y_i) \sim \mathbb{P}({\bf{X}},y), \forall i=1,...,N \\ ({\bf{X}}_i,y_i) \text{ independent of } ({\bf{X}}_j,y_j), \forall i \ne j \in \{1,...,N\} \end{gather}  I think we can all agree that this assumption is rarely satisfied in practice, see this related  and the wise comments of @Glen_b and @Luca.  My question is therefore:      Where exactly does the i.i.d. assumption becomes critical in practice?    [Context]   I'm asking this because I can think of many situations where such a stringent assumption is not needed to train a certain model (e.g. linear regression methods), or at least one can work around the i.i.d. assumption and obtain robust results. Actually the results will usually stay the same, it is rather the inferences that one can draw that will change (e.g. heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent HAC estimators in linear regression: the idea is to re-use the good old OLS regression weights but to adapt the finite-sample behaviour of the OLS estimator to account for the violation of the Gauss-Markov assumptions).   My guess is therefore that the i.i.d. assumption is required not to be able to train a particular learning algorithm, but rather to guarantee that techniques such as cross-validation can indeed be used to infer a reliable measure of the model's capability of generalising well, which is the only thing we are interested in at the end of the day in statistical learning because it shows that we can indeed learn from the data. Intuitively, I can indeed understand that using cross-validation on dependent data could be optimistically biased (as illustrated/explained in ).   For me i.i.d. has thus nothing to do with training a particular model but everything to do with that model's generalisability. This seems to agree with a paper I found by Huan Xu et al, see "Robustness and Generalizability for Markovian Samples" .   Would you agree with that?  [Example]   If this can help the discussion, consider the problem of using the LASSO algorithm to perform a smart selection amongst $P$ features given $N$ training samples $({\bf{X}}_i,y_i)$ with $\forall i=1,...,N$ $$ {\bf{X}}_i=[X_{i1},...,X_{iP}] $$ We can further assume that:   The inputs ${\bf{X}}_i$ are dependent hence leading to a violation of the i.i.d. assumption (e.g. for each feature $j=1,..,P$ we observe a $N$ point time series, hence introducing temporal auto-correlation) The conditional responses $y_i \vert {\bf{X}}_i$ are independent. We have $P \gg N$.    In what way(s) does the violation of the i.i.d. assumption can pose problem in that case assuming we plan to determine the LASSO penalisation coefficient $\lambda$ using a cross-validation approach (on the full data set) + use a nested cross-validation to get a feel for the generalisation error of this learning strategy (we can leave the discussion concerning the inherent pros/cons of the LASSO aside, except if it is useful). What is the difference between Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems? Selenium python drop down menu select If $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n^{2}$ converges, then so does $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac {a_n}{n}$ Is it possible to batch import Wavefront .obj to blender? I'm working on 2.69. If I select multiple .obj files, only one gets imported. Also if I hit A on file selection window to select all files (.obj and .mtl) I get an error, nothing gets imported. I have to import several hundreds of .obj into the blender file, is this possible? Visual Studio C# statement collapsing When editing really long code blocks (which should definitely be refactored anyway, but that's beyond the scope of this question), I often long for the ability to collapse statement blocks like one can collapse function blocks.  That is to say, it would be great if the minus icon appeared on the code outline for everything enclosed in braces.  It seems to appear for functions, classes, regions, namespaces, usings, but not for conditional or iterative blocks.  It would be fantastic if I could collapse things like ifs, switches, foreaches, that kind of thing!  Googling into that a bit, I discovered that apparently C++ outlining in VS allows this but C# outlining in VS does not.  I don't really get why.  Even notepad++ will so these collapses if I select the C# formatting, so I don't get why Visual Studio doesn't.  Does anyone know of a VS2008 add-in that will enable this behavior?  Or some sort of hidden setting for it?  Edited to add: inserting regions is of course an option and it did already occur to me, but quite frankly, I shouldn't have to wrap things in a region that are already wrapped in braces... if I was going to edit the existing code, I would just refactor it to have better separation of concern anyway. ("wrapping" with new methods instead of regions ;) Finding $\tan t$ if $t=\sum\tan^{-1}(1/2t^2)$ I am solving this problem. If $$\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \tan^{-1}\biggl(\frac{1}{2i^{2}}\biggr)= t$$ then find the value of $\tan{t}$.   My solution is like the following: I can rewrite: \begin{align*} \tan^{-1}\biggl(\frac{1}{2i^{2}}\biggr) &amp; = \tan^{-1}\biggl[\frac{(2i+1) - (2i-1)}{1+(2i+1)\cdot (2i-1)}\biggr] \\\ &amp;= \tan^{-1}(2i+1) - \tan^{-1}(2i-1) \end{align*}  and when I take the summation the only term which remains is $-\tan^{-1}(1)$, from which I get the value of $\tan{t}$ as $-1$. But the answer appears to be $1$. Can anyone help me on this. Can commuting matrices $X,Y$ always be written as polynomials of some matrix $A$? Consider square matrices over a field $K$. I don't think additional assumptions about $K$ like algebraically closed or characteristic $0$ are pertinent, but feel free to make them for comfort. For any such matrix $A$, the set $K[A]$ of polynomials in $A$ is a commutative subalgebra of $M_n(K)$; the question is whether for any pair of commuting matrices $X,Y$ at least one such commutative subalgebra can be found that contains both $X$ and $Y$.  I was asking myself this in connection with frequently recurring requests to completely characterise commuting pairs of matrices, like . While providing a useful characterisation seems impossible, a positive anwer to the current question would at least provide some answer.  Note that in many rather likely situations one can in fact take $A$ to be one of the matrices $X,Y$, for instance when one of the matrices , or more generally if its  (so coincides with the characteristic polynomial). However this is not always possible, as can be easily seen for instance for diagonal matrices $X=\operatorname{diag}(0,0,1)$ and $Y=\operatorname{diag}(0,1,1)$. However in that case both will be polynomials in $A=\operatorname{diag}(x,y,z)$ for any distinct values $x,y,z$ (then $K[A]$ consists of all diagonal matrices); although in the example in  the matrices are not both diagonalisable, an appropriate $A$ can be found there as well.   I thought for some time that any maximal commutative subalgebra of $M_n(K)$ was of the form $K[A]$ (which would imply a positive answer) for some $A$ with minimal polynomial of degree$~n$, and that a positive answer to my question was in fact instrumental in proving this. However I was wrong on both counts: there exist (for $n\geq 4$) commutative subalgebras of dimension${}&gt;n$ (whereas $\dim_KK[A]\leq n$ for all $A\in M_n(K)$) as shown in , and I was forced to correct  in the light of this; however it seems (at least in the cases I looked at) that many (all?) pairs of matrices $X,Y$ in such a subalgebra still admit a matrix $A$ (which in general is not in the subalgebra) such that $X,Y\in K[A]$. This indicates that a positive answer to my question would not contradict the existence of such large commutative subalgebras: it would just mean that to obtain a maximal dimensional subalgebra containing $X,Y$ one should in general avoid throwing in an $A$ with $X,Y\in K[A]$. I do think these large subalgebras easily show that my question but for three commuting matrices has a negative answer.  Finally I note that  to the cited MO question mentions a result by Gerstenhaber that the dimension of the subalgebra generated two commuting matrices in $M_n(K)$ cannot exceed$~n$. This unfortunately does not settle my question (if $X,Y$ would generate a subalgebra of dimension${}&gt;n$, it would have proved a negative answer); it just might be that the mentioned result is true because of the existence of $A$ (I don't have access to a proof right now, but given the formulation it seems unlikely that it was done this way).  OK, I've tried to build up the suspense. Honesty demands that I say that I do know the answer to my question, since a colleague of mine provided a convincing one. I will however not give this answer right away, but post it once there has been some time for gathering answers here; who knows somebody will prove a different answer than the one I have (heaven forbid), or at least give the same answer with a different justification. Mutable or immutable class? pylab.ion() in python 2, matplotlib 1.1.1 and updating of the plot while the program runs Should operator<< be implemented as a friend or as a member function? That's basically the question, is there a "right" way to implement operator&lt;&lt; ? Reading  I can see that something like:  friend bool operator&lt;&lt;(obj const&amp; lhs, obj const&amp; rhs);   is preferred to something like   ostream&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(obj const&amp; rhs);   But I can't quite see why should I use one or the other.  My personal case is:  friend ostream &amp; operator&lt;&lt;(ostream &amp;os, const Paragraph&amp; p) {     return os &lt;&lt; p.to_str(); }   But I could probably do:  ostream &amp; operator&lt;&lt;(ostream &amp;os) {     return os &lt;&lt; paragraph; }   What rationale should I base this decision on?  Note:   Paragraph::to_str = (return paragraph)    where paragraph's a string.