dependency, sudo, and apt-get errors in Kubuntu
Can't execute terminal commands: "the command 'sudo' is available in '/usr/bin/sudo'"
Is this a capacitor start motor and can I start it with a microwave capacitor I salvaged an old motor out of a air conditioner and I want to know if it's a capacitor start motor if I can start it with the capacitor I have and how to start it.  I included pictures of the motor and capacitor btw i have never worked with capacitive start motors so i need details on exactly how to wire it up with out ruining it Search for a string and print everything before and after within a range I have this file:  sometext1{ string1 }  sometext2{ string2 string3 }  sometext3{ string4 string5 string6 }   I want to search this file for a specific string and print everything before this string up to the opening { and everything after this string up to the closing }. I tried to achieve this with sed but if I try to print everything in the range /{/,/string2/ for example sed prints this:  sometext1{ string1 }  sometext2{ string2 sometext3{ string4 string5 string6 }   If I search for the string "string2" I need the output to be:   sometext2{ string2 string3 }   Thanks. Making overview with linked detailed maps in QGIS? Does Earth's Rotation Affect Its Shape? How do i testfor a item a player is holding? Up arrow under a sequence ListPlot and filling between curves Maximum and minimum value of Determinant of $3 \times 3$ Matrix with entries $\pm 1$ Find Maximum value of Determinant of $3 \times 3$ Matrix  with  entries $\pm 1$  My try:  I considered a matrix as :  $$A=\begin{bmatrix} 1 &amp;-1  &amp;-1 \\  -1 &amp;1  &amp;-1 \\   -1&amp;-1  &amp;1  \end{bmatrix}$$  we have $$Det(A)=-4$$ and maximum is $4$, but how can we show that these are max and min values?   I also tried as follows:  By definition Determinant of a matrix is dot product of elements of any row with corresponding Cofactors  hence  $$Det(A)=a_{11}C_{11}+a_{12}C_{12}+a_{13}C_{13}$$  By cauchy Scwartz Inequality we have  $$a_{11}C_{11}+a_{12}C_{12}+a_{13}C_{13} \le \left(\sqrt{a_{11}^2+a_{12}^2+a_{13}^2}\right)\left(\sqrt{C_{11}^2+C_{12}^2+C_{13}^2}\right)$$  any way to proceed here? I bet the automatic response to my question would be "Bell's theorem" and of course I am not disputing Bell's proof. I am however uncertain of one of his assumptions.  The so called "no conspiracy" assumption states that we somehow posses this magical thing called free will which makes us able to break free from the causal chain of events that make us measure the $y$-axis instead of the $x$-axis and so on in experiments. Obviously this makes little sense once reviewed under the light of logic. What this naturally implies is that, if a theory is fully deterministic, it is instantly super-deterministic.  Simon Kochen and John Conway published a theorem in 2009, , which simply-put states: either everything is deterministic (super-deterministic) or every particle has free will.  Among the few who accept this to the fullest extent is Gerard 't Hooft. He has proposed that what we call sub-atomic particles are really just templates and that there is a realm beneath the quantum where the true fabric of reality is "hidden". By accepting determinism he escapes Bell's theorem (due to not having to accept the "no conspiracy" assumption) and can construct a local, deterministic and realist hypothesis of reality. In Gerard 't Hooft's model there is cellular automata somewhere near the Planck scale which gives rise to the "emergent quantum mechanics".  This means that there exist no superpositions in objective reality, the cat is always either dead or alive, no collapse of wave functions, no branching universes, non-locality or retro-causality.  The big question for me is basically: Why do people have such a hard time accepting determinism? Some will object and say "oh but it's SUPER-determinism", but that makes no sense whatsoever, either everything is determined (determinism) or only somethings are (quasi-determinism). By accepting it we escape Bell's theorem. Bell himself was well aware of this and mentioned it a few times in interviews in the 80's.  I know some are concerned that if we accept complete determinism we can no longer do science because it's all a HUGE CONSPIRACY. Gerard 't Hooft has answered critics who bring up this here: , section 6.  Additionally, another author who has taken a deeper look into the worries of "conspiracies" in QM interpretations is Peter J. Lewis in his paper  (also ).  So to all of you who dismiss local hidden variables I ask: Why? Variance of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test (no ties) $\newcommand{\E}[1]{\mathbb{E}\left[#1\right]} \newcommand{\r}[1]{r\left(#1\right)} \newcommand{\P}[1]{\mathbb{P}\left(#1\right)} \newcommand{\Var}[1]{\text{Var}\left[#1\right]}$  Given two sets of data $X$ with $m$ points and $Y$ with $n$ points, unioned (keeping duplicates) to create a data set $Z = \{Z_i\}$ with $m + n = N$ data points, the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test Statistic is given by \begin{equation*} T = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}r(Z_i)\cdot \mathbb{I}(Z_i \in X)\text{,} \end{equation*} where $\mathbb{I}(Z_i \in X)$ is $1$ if $Z_i \in X$, $0$ otherwise. ($r(\cdot)$ denotes the rank of the data point.)  Suppose there are no ties. Then  \begin{align*} \E{T} = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\r{Z_i}\cdot \E{\mathbb{I}(Z_i \in X)} &amp;= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\r{Z_i}\cdot\P{Z_i \in X} \\ &amp;= \dfrac{m}{N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\r{Z_i} \\ &amp;= \dfrac{mN(N+1)}{2N} \\ &amp;= \dfrac{m(N+1)}{2}\text{.} \end{align*} This comes out to what it says in the book Nonparametric Statistical Inference, 5th ed., by Gibbons and Chakraborti.  Now for $\Var{T}$: \begin{align*} \Var{T} &amp;= \Var{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\r{Z_i}\mathbb{I}(Z_i \in X)}\\ &amp;= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\left[\r{Z_i}\right]^2\Var{\mathbb{I}(Z_i \in X)} \\ &amp;= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\left[\r{Z_i}\right]^2\P{Z_i \in X}\left[1-\P{Z_i \in X}\right]\\ &amp;= \left(\dfrac{m}{N}\right)\left(1-\dfrac{m}{N}\right)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\left[\r{Z_i}\right]^2 \\ &amp;= \left(\dfrac{m}{N}\right)\left(1-\dfrac{m}{N}\right)\left[\dfrac{N(N+1)(2N+1)}{6}\right] \\ &amp;= \left(\dfrac{m}{N}\right)\left(\dfrac{N-m}{N}\right)\left[\dfrac{N(N+1)(2N+1)}{6}\right] \\ &amp;= \left(\dfrac{m}{N}\right)\left(\dfrac{n}{N}\right)\left[\dfrac{N(N+1)(2N+1)}{6}\right] \\ &amp;= \dfrac{2N+1}{N}\left[\dfrac{mn(N+1)}{6}\right] \end{align*} The answer should be $\dfrac{mn(N+1)}{12}$. What did I do wrong? The number of different ways to choose $k$ out of $n$ unique items:   Without repetition and without order-significance: $\binom{n}{k}=\frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$ Without repetition and with order-significance: $\binom{n}{k}\times k!=\frac{n!}{(n-k)!}$ With repetition and with order-significance: $n^k$ With repetition and without order-significance: $?$   Thank you! How do I query for posts by partial meta key? I have a function that stores the "like" status for a post as post meta. I want to associate that "like" with the user that liked it, so I setup a custom field called "like_status_{user_id}" (where {user_id} is the id of the currently logged in user) which I store as a 0 or 1. So for a post with several "likes" there would be several meta values in the db that are setup like this:  'meta_key' = 'like_status_0' 'meta_value' = 1 'meta_key' = 'like_status_2' 'meta_value' = 1 'meta_key' = 'like_status_34' 'meta_value' = 1   ....and so on.  There are potentially thousands of likes on a specific post. How would I run a query that showed if someone else also liked that post?  I was thinking something like this:  $query = new WP_Query(array(     'meta_key' =&gt; 'like_status_{user_id}',     'meta_value' =&gt; 1, ));   I'm trying to push a notification to everyone who has liked a post when someone else likes that post...something like, "Hey, someone else liked that post you liked. You should go check it out!" But I need a way to find out if anyone else has liked that post and if so, who they would be so I could notify them.  If it's not possible, could you suggest a better way of storing this data as post_meta while still keeping the efficiency of quickly updating a single user's like status on a post? ‘[...][Harry'll] be famous – a legend – I wouldn’t be surprised if today was known as Harry Potter Day in future – there will be books written about Harry – every child in our world will know his name!’   ‘Exactly,’ said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half-moon glasses. ‘It would be enough to turn any boy’s head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won’t even remember! Can’t you see how much better off he’ll be, growing up away from all that until he’s ready to take it?’   Philosopher's Stone - pages 15 - 16 - chapter one, The Boy Who Lived   Did Dumbledore choose correctly?  Knowing what we do about Harry and his canon character attributes (And faults, too!), was Harry really better off enduring eleven years of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of the Dursleys than eleven years of celebrity and fame in the wizarding world? I'm sure we've all read about child celebrities who have done well handling fame, and some who have not fared so gracefully.   Would Harry have endured celebrity as stoically as he did the Dursleys' abuse? Did Dumbledore make the right choice in leaving Harry with the Dursleys instead of letting him grow up in the wizarding world?  Was Harry really better off?  ETA: I'm looking for an answer grounded in Harry Potter canon and written in the spirit of canon. Please do not pair Harry with Elle Fanning or opine that he's secretly an American ;) Thanks! I remember watching this sci-fi movie where a huge metallic capsule gets dropped from a few hundred meters. The capsule had a chamber inside where only one person could be seated. During the drop, time dilated and the person would transcend to another world, lasting for days, even meeting dead people. Kind of a parallel reality.  It was an amazing movie, but I cannot recall its name. So I'm working on this class that's supposed to request help documentation from a vendor through a web service. I try to name it DocumentRetriever, VendorDocRequester, DocGetter, but they just don't sound right. I ended up browsing through  for half an hour trying to come up with an adequate word.   Start programming with bad names is like having a very bad hair day in the morning, the rest of the day goes downhill from there. Feel me? Finding the unique rock with its weight I have 12 rocks, all have the same weight except for one rock, but I don‘t know which rock is. How do I know which rock is different from other, and also know that rock heavier or lighter, with maximum 3 comparating steps. My only tool is just a balance that can only compare the weight between the rocks. Should I use #define, enum or const? How do I force TeX to completely use the 1st column? How do I force TeX to completely use the 1st column before writing to the second column?  Right now I dont have enough content to fill one whole page. So the left and right columns are equally filled, leaving 25% symmetrical empty page at bottom. How do I fill the left column first, and then the right?  \documentclass{article}  \usepackage{multicol} \usepackage[scale=0.9]{geometry} \usepackage{amssymb} \renewcommand{\labelitemi}{\tiny$\blacksquare$} \begin{document} \begin{multicols}{2}      %lots of text goes here  \end{multicols} \end{document} Prove that $(x^2 + x+2)$ ideal is a maximal ideal in $F_3[x]$ ring.  I know the theorem about factor rings and fields     B ideal from A ring is maximal iff A/B factor-ring is a field   How can I use the theorem here? 3 more votes from other users are needed to close this question.   This is the message I got hovering the mouse over close voting tab.   I wonder can we begin any sentence with a numeric value? Is it good practice?