Why can't I remove the '.' directory?
Why is '.' a hard link in Unix?
The 3 different equals Is there a built-in function to print all the current properties and values of an object? How does Lockable Suspension work? I recently asked a question about . There  told me about the “blow off” feature. Now, I am curious about how the whole system works.   So, can anyone tell me about how a lockable front suspension works, together with features like “remote-lock” and “blow-off”. Link button in post editor escapes square brackets in code From Wikipedia: Fermi was known for his ability to make good approximate calculations with little or no actual data, hence the name. One example is his estimate of the strength of the atomic bomb detonated at the Trinity test, based on the distance travelled by pieces of paper dropped from his hand during the blast. Fermi's estimate of 10 kilotons of TNT was remarkably close to the now-accepted value of around 20 kilotons, a difference of less than one order of magnitude.  I have not been able to find any references explaining how he made this calculation. Please provide a reference or an example calculation.  See also: Below is experimental data for the ratio $$R=\frac{\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow hadrons)}{\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)}$$ as a function of the centre of mass energy $\sqrt s$. I am interested in the peak at around $100GeV$ which corresponds to the resonance of the $Z^0$ boson. There are two ways of looking at this that I have in mind:  We can effectively ignore the electromagnetic process around this energy, and so each process should have it's own Breit-Wigner peak centred on the mass energy of the $Z^0$. The ratio of these is just a constant. Thinking in terms of Feynman rules and again ignoring the electromagnetic process around this region, each process has the same propagator and vertex factors (roughly - ignore quark mixing) and there are some extra factors due to different quarks being possible and colour degeneracy, but still the ratio should be a constant (one possible issue here is interference between Feynman diagrams which I have neglected?).  So my question is why does the peak exist in the data? iOS Run Code Once a Day Let's say I have 1m of 2,5mm² copper wire, insulated with H07V-K. The wire carries 40A and environment temperature is 25°C. The wire is suspended in free air. How hot will the wire get? And how can I calculate it for other values?  The use case is a 12V-230V AC converter I want to hook up to my car and determine the minimum wire thickness required. Because it's only used from time to time and not buried in a wall I suspect I can use thinner wires. This is a temporary thing and doesn't need to be up to code. Defragmenting an SSD drive is a bad idea and Windows 7 is (should be?) smart enough not to schedule defragmentation on such drives.  However, I've opened up Disk Defragmenter on my system and found, to my surprise, that my SSD has indeed been defragmented... recently!  Then I checked the disks selected for the scheduled defrag (I have one SSD and one normal disk), and there the list correctly shows only the non-SSD drive.   MSDN forum post seems to suggest that, at least on Windows 8, defragmenting an SSD drive will just cause the TRIM command to be sent to the drive, but there's no word on what actually happens if you try to defrag an SSD drive on Windows 7 (aside from the fact that it shouldn't happen automatically).  What happens in Windows 7 if one chooses to defrag and SSD? What could possibly have been the reason my SSD drive got been defragmented?  EDIT:  I just remembered - I've moved some folders (Users and ProgramData) from my SSD drive to my normal drive using junctions.  question suggests that this shouldn't have any effects at all on the defragmentation process, but could it have an effect on the "last run" in Disk Defragmenter? math fallacy problem: $-1= (-1)^3 = (-1)^{6/2} = \sqrt{(-1)^6}= 1$? This is a homework question. $d,n\ge 2$.  Let $L=\{(x_1,...,x_n)\in (\mathbb{R}^d)^n: x_i\in \mathbb{R}^d,  x_i\ne x_j \forall i\ne j\}$.   I tend to think it is not path connected because if you assume $d=1$, this is the case. But I cannot prove for $d\ge 2$.  Any help will be appreciated! :) I've often heard that Einstein shattered the notion of absolute motion (i.e. all things move relative to one another) and that he established the speed of light as being absolute. That sounds paradoxical to me; I cannot understand how the two concepts can be reconciled.  Before going further, I'd like to say: 1) Over the years, I've seen many layman's explanations on these topics (including the nice YouTube video by Vsauce, ). I understand everything that's said (or, at least, I think I do). Just nothing I've found seems to address this apparent contradiction. 2) More recently, I've tried to find the answer on my own. That includes searching the posts on this site. Some come close (), but nothing I've been able to find seems address specifically what I'm asking.  Back to the question: Relativity shows us that there is no universal frame of reference by which to judge motion, so object A might be reckoned as moving at 10&nbsp;m/s relative to object B or as stationary relative to object C. This is fine for me. I can grasp that the universe has no intrinsic coordinate system, that we only think that way on Earth because we have the ground to move over.  Then there's the speed of light (in a vacuum). The speed of light is the ultimate "speed limit," it's often said. But if there is no universal frame of reference, how can there be any such speed? The very idea only make sense if there is a universal frame.   If one object is moving (uniformly) at 60%&nbsp;c and another object is also moving at 60%&nbsp;c, but in the exact opposite direct, then from the perspective of either one (if they could still see each other) the other would appear to violate that speed limit. All these spacetime bending consequences used to explain why nothing can move past this speed only seems to enshrine the concept that there is some ultimate speed standard. If there is only relative speed, then the concept of light having a specific speed in the vacuum should be a nonsensical one since it having speed (x m/s) would only make sense when measured against some other body.   Since I was very young, it has always sounded to me like motion is only mostly relative, that until you get close to the speed of light, the effects of an absolute frame of reference are negligible. Perhaps that there is an actual fabric of space which everything moves relative to, which is why there is something to expand between galaxies (faster than light can propagate) in the metric expansion of space. Growing up, I always thought this would just start makes sense with time. Now I'm up to a first year (college) level in physics, I even know basic calculus, yet I'm still hopelessly confused.  EDIT:  Thank you to whoever suggested this may be a duplicate of . It and others are very much related and at least partially answer my question. Unfortunately, explaining that distances become shorter and time becomes slower as a way to stop you from exceeding the speed of light does not explain how that speed is not an absolute.  By my reckoning, if all speed is relative, then no matter how fast you go light should always race away from you at the same apparent speed. I.e. there should be no speed limit. For there to be a speed which you cannot exceed or you would catch up (and make time irrelevant) requires the very concept of some external speed by which light can travel and nothing else can reach - thus my logical paradox continues unabated. I do as follows  $(1+x)^n= \binom{n}{0}+\binom{n}{1}x+\binom{n}{2}x^2+...+\binom{n}{n}x^n$   differentiating in both sides  $n(1+x)^{n-1}= \binom{n}{1}+2\binom{n}{2}x+3\binom{n}{3}x^2...+n\binom{n}{n}x^{n-1}$  then, for $x=1$  $n \cdot2^{n-1} = \sum_{k=1}^{n}k\binom{n}{k}$  From here, I don't know how to proceed, I have tried to multiply both sides for $(1+x)$ to make $n \cdot2^{n}$ but then the summatory changes, I don't know how to prove the equality. Does the lens I just bought have a fungus? Number of suggested edits seems to include own edits Ubuntu desktop suddenly points to home folder Call a javascript function after 5 sec of last key press Unsolved mystery - I was given a coworker's Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS machine and set up my own (sudo/admin) user on there from the command line. I switched to my user (from his sudo/admin user) and confirmed everything was okay using the groups command and the /etc/passwd file looked great. After months of everything working perfectly, a power outage shut down the machine for the first time since I inherited it.  After booting, my new user disappeared. It's not in the /etc/passwd file and there is no entry in the /home directory. I created the user the same as I did before, and there were no errors to indicate that the user still existed.  What happened?  As requested, here is the output of   olduser@machine:~$ ls -lait /home  total 16  3408126 drwxr-xr-x 2 newuser newuser 4096 Nov 20 10:28 newuser  3407873 drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Nov 20 10:28 .  3407874 drwxr-xr-x 36 coworker coworker 4096 Nov 20 10:00 bvillupu  2 drwxr-xr-x 26 root root 4096 Oct 3 2012 ..  3408259 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 44 Aug 9 2012 .directory -&gt; /etc/kubuntu-default-settings/directory-home Git is automatically merging changes from a different branch to master Python CSV parsing not returning proper rows