How do I develop black and white film myself?
How do I develop black and white negatives at home?
I've been told that when "the" is proceeded by a vowel sound, like "apple" or "hour", it's pronounced as "thee" and not as "thu".  But after listening to a couple of songs, I noticed that sometimes this "rule" is not followed. Take for example the two Katy Perry's songs, "Roar" and "The one that got away". In the first she sings "I got thee eye of thu tiger", but in the second she sings "Thu one that got away".  I don't know if it was sang this way to better suit the song melody (I understand nothing about those techniques), but I got confused. What's the correct pronunciation?  Thanks in advance. On Mac, are there keyboard shortcuts to create a new Space? Or at least any way to automate this process with keyboard shortcuts? I want to not have to use the mouse to create Spaces. I want to use the keyboard for that. I'm trying to make a longtable that is wider than the textwidth at a certain moment. I've tried different things always ending up with a different problem:  First possibility: If I use the adjustwidth environment the longtabu does not align correctly. The left margin stays fixed and the right margin gets out of the page. This in contrast, if I do the exact same thing to make a tabu (instead of longtabu), it works perfectly. I think using the adjustwidth is the best way to go, but I can't manage to get it working.  Second possibility: I've found a solution using the fullwidth package. That package does the trick on small longtables, but freezes when I'm trying to do it on my big longtable. The command \setlength\LTleft{-2cm} didn't work as well.  The final option I tried was to use geometry. But that changes the margin of the whole page thus making a page break which I'm not interested in. The code I used for this was  \newgeometry{left=1.2cm} \begin{longtable} long table stuff \end{longtable} \restoregeometry   Here's an example of what I want contra what I get  \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage{chngpage} \usepackage{lipsum} \usepackage{tabu}  \begin{document} \section{This is the original textwidth.} \lipsum[1]  \section{This is the width I need for my longtabu} \begin{adjustwidth}{-1in}{-1in} \begin{tabu} to \linewidth {*{13}{|X[l]} |} 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ \end{tabu} \end{adjustwidth}  \section{This is what happens} \begin{adjustwidth}{-1in}{-1in} \begin{longtabu} to \linewidth {*{13}{|X[l]} |} 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ 01 &amp; 02 &amp; 03 &amp; 04 &amp; 05 &amp; 06 &amp; 07 &amp; 08 &amp; 09 &amp; 10 &amp; 11 &amp; 12 &amp; 13 \\ \end{longtabu} \end{adjustwidth}  \end{document} I have a WordPress site which is 90% based on images.  I've installed Wp-Super-Cache, now it seems to load a little bit faster.   I've made a speed test on Pingdom Tools:   Page size 4.7MB Load time 5.09s Requests 153 Perf. grade 74/100   And also the Time Spent per Content Type:   Image    88.23%     So the problem is obviously the images.   My plan is to try as much as I can to optimize the images in terms of size, and then to add CDN support.  Is this enough in terms of improving the loading of images? Black flakes from new cast iron pan I bought a brand new Lodge 12" cast iron pan, washed it in soap and warm water and dried it with a paper towel thoroughly. Then I applied a thin layer of canola oil with a paper towel (paper towel was clean - not black after this application) and then heated the empty pan on my electric stove for 15-20 minutes. The oil on the pan smoked a bit, some parts of the pan turned slightly ashy (grey). Mostly everything looked OK.   After I turned it off and cooled the pan, I now take a clean paper towel and rub the surface and I see black flakes! What is this? Is this the oil broken down? Can I cook in the pan or wash it with soap to eliminate the black flakes? Once washed and dried should I rub canola oil again? This is my first experience with cast iron. Any pointers will help. At the start of A New Hope are Yoda and Obi-Wan really the last remaining Jedi? I have never read any Star Wars books and have no knowledge outside of the Star Wars films, but after seeing Episode III I am left wondering if there are any other Jedi that escape death and remain in hiding like Yoda did. I mean with regard to the "official" events in the Star Wars universe. "Coming soon" pages & SEO $f(x+1)-f(x)$ converges $\Rightarrow\frac{f(x)}x$ converges Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ continuous such that $\lim_{x\to\infty}f(x+1)-f(x)=l$.  How can I prove that $\dfrac{f(x)}x$ converges for $x\to+\infty$ ?  I am just trying to prove the convergence, not that it converges to $l$ (that part be deduced immediately by Stolz-Cesaro and the sequential characterization of limits) What is this shell/Bash syntax: someVariable=someValue someCommand One of my coworkers has provided me with a Bash syntax that I am unfamiliar with.  My Google foo has failed me on figuring out what it does and why/when I should use it.    The command that he sent me was of this form:  someVariable=something command   Initially, I thought that this was equivalent to the following:   someVariable=something ; command   Or  someVariable=something  command   But this doesn't appear to the be case.  Examples:   [Jan-03 11:26][~]$ # Look at the environment variable BAZ. It is currently empty [Jan-03 11:26][~]$ echo $BAZ  [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ # Try running a command of the same format     [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ BAZ=jake echo $BAZ  [Jan-03 11:27][~]$     [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ # Now, echo BAZ again. It is still empty:     [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ echo $BAZ  [Jan-03 11:27][~]$     [Jan-03 11:28][~]$     [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ # If we add a semi-colon to the command, we get dramatically different results: [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ BAZ=jake ; echo $BAZ jake [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ # And we can see that the variable is actually set: [Jan-03 11:29][~]$ echo $BAZ jake [Jan-03 11:29][~]$   What does this syntax do?  What happens to the variable that has been set?  Why does this work? Does the speed of light vary in non-inertial frames? I have this setup:   The mesh is only the visible top side, with a mirror modifier for the bottom part. Now I want to unwrap it like in the picture. I want the inner circle (red) to go to the top of the UV map...  The problem is that no matter what automatic unwrapping I use, it never works as intended.  The closest I've gotten was by using "follow quads", but that skewed the UV map a lot:   I used the result from the second image and manually adjusted the vertices with a lot of scaling and "align auto", but its very far from perfect as you can see in the first image.  Here's what I want exactly:   The uv vertices should be distributed evenly (horizontally) The middle line (yellow) should be on a "natural" y height (so there's no stretching)   I hope it's clear what I want to achieve. I'm sure there must be some automatic way to perfectly align and distribute the UVs in this way.  By the way: If you look closely you can see that I already placed a uv seam (aligned with the green y axis in the screenshot) but that didn't really help. file /dev/* prints the description of a bunch of files as "block special (M/N)" and "character special (M/N)", where M and N are numbers. For example:  $ file /dev/null /dev/null: character special (1/3)   man file doesn't seem to document these, but refers vaguely to man stat, which seems to refer to these as major and minor device types. apropos 'device type' finds nothing. So what do these numbers mean? Capturing SOAP requests to an ASP.NET ASMX web service How do I show that there exists variational/action principle for a given classical system? We see variational principles coming into play in different places such as Classical Mechanics (Hamilton's principle which gives rise to the Euler-Lagrange equations), Optics (in the form of Fermat's principle) and even General Relativity (we get Einstein's equation from the Einstein-Hilbert action). However, how do we explain this very principle, i.e., more mathematically, I want to ask the following:      If I am given a set of generalized positions and velocities, say, $\{q_{i}, \dot{q}_{i}\}$, which describes a classical system with known dynamics (equations of motion), then, how do I rigorously show that there always exists an action functional $A$, where    $$A ~=~ \int L(q_{i}, \dot{q}_{i})dt,$$    such that $\delta A = 0$ gives the correct equations of motion and trajectory of the system?    I presume historically, the motivation came from Optics: i.e., light rays travel along a path where $S = \int_{A}^{B} n ds$ is minimized (or at least stationary). (Here, $ds$ is the differential element along the path). I don't mind some symplectic geometry talk if that is needed at all. "going to" definition, does it imply intent? I have had a debate with one of my friends about this little game:  "1 rabbit saw 9 elephants while going to the river. Every elephant saw 3 monkeys going to the river. Each monkey had 1 tortoise in each hand. How many animals are going to the river?"  Answers:   4 - if you could rabbit and monkeys (which are described as "going to" the river)  10 - if you are counting tortoises in monkeys' hands 19 - if you assume all   my argument is that the tortoises are not "going to", but are being either "taken to" or "move towards" river. That's what I would say if someone holds me and goes to the river.  my friend's argument is that because they move towards the river, they are "going to" the river. he gave example of me being in the car.  Me: If I don't intend to go there, I'm being "taken to", even if in the car.  Question: does "going to" implies intent of the subject ? Where can I start to learn ArcPy? "going to come down" vs "going to have to come down" What is the difference between the following sentences?        This fence is going to come down.   This fence is going to have to come down.      I have doubt that when you are saying fence is going to have to come down, that is enough to say it right? but why I hear in movies saying fence is going to have to come down, is there a difference between them? Splitting raster into smaller chunks using GDAL? I have a raster (USGS DEM actually) and I need to split it up into smaller chunks like the image below shows. That was accomplished in ArcGIS 10.0 using the Split Raster tool. I would like a FOSS method to do this. I've looked at GDAL, thinking surely it would do it (somehow with gdal_translate), but can't find anything. Ultimately, I'd like to be able to take the raster and say how large (4KM by 4KM chunks) I would like it split up into. How to add a PPA on a server? Why doesn't the definition of a category require an explicit notion of morphisms equality? I am learning basics of the category theory (CT).  I do understand that CT is a modern powerful framework to describe various branches of mathematics in a unified way.  I do admit that category's definition tells a lot about the whole thing and focuses on the most important properties, shadowing unnecessary details. However, the more I go forward, the more it feels like it should explicitly require a notion of morphisms equality (like it does with morphism composition). It feels so because equality or inequality of morphisms arises everywhere, since the very beginning: any commutative diagram eventually reduces to an equality of two different paths and many other things involve equality as well. Even composition is defined grounding upon an (implicit) equality!  I'll try to give an example of my concern. Consider $\mathbb{SET}$. Its objects are sets and morphisms are functions. Now, let's recall that functions are sets as well - to be more precise, a function $f : A \mapsto B$ is a subset of a $A \times B$ obeying certain properties, which I omit. Thus, one could argue that $f$ is both a morphism between objects $A, B \in Obj(\mathbb{SET})$ and an object defined as a set of pairs $\{ (a_1 \in A, b_1 \in B), ..., (a_n \in A, b_n \in B) \}$ and those are equal because both are essentially exactly the same thing.  I hope my concern is clear and I need some kind of "conceptual insight" from knowledgeable people to move forward. Please give me the right perspective.