Text not being sent in Twisted
Receiving commandline input while listening for connections in Python
I know that jQuery is loaded, because I can switch out the $ for 'jQuery' and everything behaves as expected, but this will be a messy script if I can't fix this  This script:  jQuery(document).ready(function(){     $("ul.vimeo_desc_feed li a").click(function(){         alert($(this).attr('href'));         return false;     }) });   Produces the error $ is not a function  This script:  jQuery(document).ready(function(){     jQuery("ul.vimeo_desc_feed li a").click(function(){         alert(jQuery(this).attr('href'));         return false;     }) });   works fine. How to set the chapter style in report class? I want to set chapters to look like 'bigger' sections.  Now in the report class I have a style like:     Chapter 1      Introduction      1.1. Section   What I want to achieve is:        Introduction         1.1. Section   I don't want to change the document class. Being characteristic is transitive Here, I wanted to verify that:     The property of being characteristic is a transitive relation among subgroups of a group $G$.   For subgroups $N,H\leq G$, we have $N$ char $G$ and $H$ char $N$. So $N$ char $G$ implies: $$\forall\psi\in Aut(G); \psi(N)=N$$ $H$ char $N$, so for all elements in $Aut(N)$, $H$ is remained never changing. Especially, when I take $\psi'=\psi|_{N}$ then $\psi':N\to Aut(N)$ would be in $Aut(N)$ and $\psi'(H)=H$. Since the last equality is true for $H$ and the maps, caused by restriction on $N$, then I have $H$ char $G$.  Honestly, I am inly not satisfied form the conclusion here and think I am losing something. Thanks for your hints. Infinite series $\sum _{n=2}^{\infty } \frac{1}{n \log (n)}$ Recently, I encountered a problem about infinite series. So my question is how to know whether the infinite series $\sum _{n=2}^{\infty } \frac{1}{n \log (n)}$ is convergent? Is there any connection between a matrix being invertible and being diagonalizable? Let $A$ be an $n\times n$ matrix.  If $A$ is invertible then one of it's eigenvalues is 0.  If $A$ is diagonalizable then it has $n$ linearly independent eigenvectors.   Are these two statements true? Is there any connection between them? May I infer one from the other? How to get text from an element , when getText fails I have the following element element(by.css(&quot;span[aria-label='Picker ID, TESTUSER']&quot;)  I want to assure the text on this filed is TESTUSER, so I tried:  expect(element(by.css(&quot;span[aria-label='Picker ID, TESTUSER']&quot;)).getAttribute('value')).toEqual('TESTUSER');  then I got the error: Expected null to equal 'TESTUSER' So I tried: element(by.css(&quot;span[aria-label='Picker ID, TESTUSER']&quot;)).getText().then(function (value) {         console.log(value);       })  And I got this error: Expected '' to be 'TESTUSER'.  How to get the value of this field and expect it is TESTUSER? Prove $\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{1}{(i-1)i}$ = $\frac{(n-1)}{n}$ using induction. I need to prove $\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{1}{(i-1)i}$ = $\frac{(n-1)}{n}$ using induction. I am getting stuck midway through the inductive step.   Here is what I have:  $\forall n\geq 2$, where $n\in\mathbb{N}, P(n)$ is the statement "$\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{1}{(i-1)i}$ = $\frac{(n-1)}{n}$".  Base case:  $\sum\limits_{i=2}^{2}\frac{1}{(i-1)i}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ = $\frac{(2-1)}{2}$ so $P(2)$ is true.  Inductive assumption: Assume $P(n)$ is true. Need to show $\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n+1}\frac{1}{(i-1)i}$ = $\frac{((n+1)-1)}{(n+1)}$.  $\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{1}{(i-1)i}$ + $\frac{1}{n^{2}}$ = $\frac{(n-1)}{n}$ + $\frac{1}{n^{2}}$  = $\frac{n(n-1) + 1}{n^{2}}$ = $\frac{n^{2}-n+1}{n^{2}}$  I got stuck here and tried working backward from $\frac{((n+1)-1)}{(n+1)}$, which gives me:  $\frac{((n+1)-1)}{(n+1)}$ = $\frac{n}{(n+1)}$   Any suggestions on what to do next or where I may be going wrong? How to use variable in sed command Suppose that $(s_n)$ converges to s. Prove that $(s_n^2)$ converges to $s^2$ I am really struggling with my proofs class, I don't really understand how to prove a statement like this, or what the epsilon is standing for..  Suppose that $(s_n)$ converges to s.  Prove that $(s_n^2)$ converges to $s^2$ directly without using the fact that $lim(s_nt_n)=st$  Suppose that $(s_n)$ converges to s. Then, since $(s_n)$ is convergent, there exists an $M_1$ such that $|S_n|&lt;M_1$, for all $n\in \!\,\mathbb{N} \!\,$. Let $M=M_1+|S|$ (I don't completely understand this step...). Then given $ε&gt;0$, there exists N such that n>N implies that $|s_n-s|&lt;ε/M$. Thus for n>N, we have $|s_n^2-s^2|=|s_n-s|*|s_n+s|&lt;(ε/M)(M)=ε$. Hence, $s_n^2$ converges to $s^2$. Trying to identify a short sci-fi story about a human that is "resurrected" by malignant aliens Is there a formula for $(1+i)^n+(1-i)^n$? How to render a background image in 2.8? I'm in a freshmen level physics class now, so I don't know much, but something I heard today intrigued me. My TA was talking about how at the research facility he worked at, they were able to accelerate some certain particle to "99.99% the speed of light". I said why not 100%, and I didn't quite understand his explanation, but he said it wasn't possible. This confused me. Since the speed of light is a finite number, why can we go so close to its speed but not quite?  Edit: I read all the answers, and I think I'm sort of understanding it. Another silly question though: If we are getting this particle to 99.99% the speed of light by giving it some sort of finite acceleration, and increasing it more and more, why cant we increase it just a little more? Sorry I know this is a silly question. I totally accept the fact we cant reach 100%, but I'm just trying to break it down. If we've gotten so close by giving it larger and larger acceleration every time, why cant we just supply it with more acceleration? And how much of a difference is there between 99.99% the speed of light, and the speed of light? (I'm not really sure if "difference" is a good word to use, but hopefully you get what I'm asking). Find the least value of $ \sec^6 x +\csc^6 x + \sec^6 x\csc^6 x$ Find the least value of $$ \sec^6 x +\csc^6 x + \sec^6 x\csc^6 x$$ I tried AM greater than equal to GM But that's for finding maximum value.  This can probably be solved with calculus but I don't know for some reason I can't find the answer . Which is $80$. How to implement a single instance Java application? Sometime I see many application such as msn, windows media player etc that are single instance applications (when user executes while application is running a new application instance will not created).  In C#, I use Mutex class for this but I don't know how to do this in Java. Can the 5E abjurer wizard recover temp hp on his arcane ward any time it is below max or only when it reaches 0? On p115 of the PHB under Arcane Ward there are a few facts that I think are clear:   The ward is created by the first abjuration spell you cast in a day It has a max hp of level &times; 2 + int modifier. The ward does not absorb damage once it reaches 0 hp, but it remains until you take a long rest The ward can be recharged by casting abjuration spells, at a rate of 2 x spell level worth of hp 3.   However, the way they wrote the paragraph about recharging seems unclear to me. Can you recharge the ward whenever it is below max hp or only when it is at 0? My understanding of temporary hp would say it is the latter, but the writing on this ability infers the former.  An example.  If I were a level 10 abjurer with 20 int and cast Mage Armor, it would give the ward 25 hp. If I took 30 damage from an enemy, the ward would absorb 25 damage, leaving it at 0, and I would take the remaining 5 damage. If I cast Stoneskin (level 4 abjuration) the ward would be recharged with 8 hp. If I then cast Planar Binding (level 5 abjuration) which would be correct?   The ward remain at 8 hp The ward would recharge an additional 10 hp to a total of 18 hp Is this group solvable? Let $G=H\times K$ (a direct product of $H , K$) where $H$ is an abelian 2-group and $K$ is a non-abelian simple group. Is $G$ solvable? why?  These three answers are true, and I thought so. But in a book I found a remark that made me confused: T.M. Gagen, Topics in Finite Groups, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 16, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1976, Remark, Theorem A on p. $40 $ and Definition $11.3$ on p. $39$. Please see it and say me your ideas. I have a text file abc.txt and its contents are:     /lag/cnn/org/one.txt    /lag/cnn/org/two.txt    /lag/cnn/org/three.txt   If I use:  $ tar -cvf allfiles.tar -T abc.txt   I'm getting the tar of files in the list. Similarly is it possible to copy those files in abc.txt to a folder?  I tried this:              $ cp --files-from test1.txt ./Folder   But it is not working. When to use an object pronoun or a possessive adjective before a gerund The rule says that we can use a possessive adjective or an object pronoun before a gerund. Is there a rule  that says when to use each or are they interchangeable? Some say that it's wrong to use an object pronoun before a gerund. Word for killing off or attempting to kill off an entire bloodline? I would like to know if there is a word or phrase for a systematic campaign to annihilate every descendant of a particular ancestor.   We have the word 'genocide' for killing off an entire race, and plenty of words for killing people based on how they are related to you (fratricide, filicide, et. al.), but looking over the  and the , I couldn't find a term for systematically killing an entire bloodline.   My question is prompted by a US news story about the horrific murder of 8 members of the same family, but those murders are not an example of what I'm thinking of because the children of the victims were left alive, so the motive for the killings was not to kill off the bloodline. The sense that some group had coordinated an attack against just one family is what made me wonder what the "not an entire race, just one bloodline" version of 'genocide' would be called.   Searching the Internet for "kill off" and bloodline sends me straight into the land of vampires, Illuminati, reptilian overlords, and, naturally, Priory of Sion nonsense so I haven't had much luck finding a thread to pull.   It may be that there is no word for it in the sense of murdering a human bloodline, because we just don't attempt kill off our royals down to the last heir often enough to coin a term for it. Maybe there is a scientific term for culling a line from a test population as part of biological research?