Set up https/SSL certificate for private Gitlab instance without custom domain
How do I trust a self signed certificate?
$\lim_{x \to 0} {1-x\cot x\over x^2}$ SharePoint People.aspx Page is Visible for All Users The SharePoint People.aspx page is visible for all users by default. Is there any way to restrict this page from certain readers? Aliens want to destroy all dogs because they are seen as next step in evolution beyond Man I read a SF short story years ago, I think it may have been in high school back in the 1970s. Aliens come to earth, to kill all the dogs, because they see Man as destroying himself, and dogs as evolving to take Man's place, thus being a threat to the aliens. Humanity agrees to kill all the dogs to get rid of the aliens, but in fact have taken border collies (?) deep underground in order to save them and ensure that they evolve.  Does anyone know the title/author of this short story?  Thank you in advance for your assistance. Difference between shutdown and shutdownNow of Executor Service In a preadditive category, products are coproducts $\renewcommand{\phi}{\varphi}$ $\require{AMScd}$ My question is different from .  I want to see how in a preadditive category $\mathcal{C}$ a product is a coproduct, following . I'll write the proof up to the point where I get stuck.  Let $A=A_1,B=A_2$ be objects and suppose their product $P$ does exist, with projections $\pi_i:P\rightarrow A_i$. By considering a wedge  $$\begin{CD}A @&lt;{id_A}&lt;&lt;  A @&gt;{0_{AB}}&gt;&gt;  B\end{CD}$$  and the obvious analogous one with $A$ and $B$ exchanged, where $0_{A,B}$ is the zero morphism, we see that the product property implies the existence of two unique morphisms $k_i\in\mathcal{C}[A_i,P]$ s.t.  \begin{align*} \pi_j\circ k_i=\begin{cases} \mathrm{id}_i &amp;\text{if }i=j\\ 0_{A_i, A_j} &amp;\text{if }i\neq j \end{cases}. \end{align*} Using these equations and the definition of zero morphism, it's easy to see that the morphism $m\equiv k_1\circ \pi_1+ k_2\circ \pi_2$ satisfies $\pi_i\circ m=\pi_i$.   This is where I get stuck: In the linked proof, they now state that this implies $m=\mathrm{id}_P.$ But I don't see why this should be true.   Specifically, if $\phi\in\mathcal{C}[S,P]$ for some arbitrary object $S$, it is not apparent why $m\circ\phi=\phi$. All that we know is that there are some morphisms $x_i\in\mathcal{C}[S,A_i]$ that factor through $P$ via the universal property, but these are not necessarily unique.  And we learn even less about $m$ by looking at morphisms in $\mathcal{C}[P,S]$.  What am I missing here? Which experiments prove atomic theory?  Sub-atomic theories:   atoms have: nuclei; electrons; protons; and neutrons. That the number of electrons atoms have determines their relationship with other atoms.   That the atom is the smallest elemental unit of matter - that we can't continue to divide atoms into anything smaller and have them retain the characteristics of the parent element. That everything is made of atoms.     These sub-theories might spur more thoughts of individual experiments that prove individual sub-atomic theories (my guess is more was able to be proven after more experiments followed). How many times can I repeat a keyword without looking spammy to Google? I have an eCommerce based on Opencart, but I have some doubts about how many times I can repeat the same word.  For example, the keyword is present in the title, description, h1, h2 and is repeated several times in the text:   Page Title: Shop Iphone other keyword Page description: Shop Iphone other keyword   (and they continue appearing below)   H1: Shop Iphone other keyword H2: Shop Iphone other keyword 10 more times in the text: Shop iPhone   I mean, if Googlebot sees the same WORD 30 times, can it be considered SPAM? Can I lose something or can I use keywords a lot?  In WOORANK I saw my review and I noticed that I need to improve my keywords, and a lot. I have some keywords like: payment, description, promotion, sales... keywords really "empty"  [ UPDATE ]  Can repeating keywords make them lose importance? So I'm trying to install Visual Studio 2015 Community on my Windows Server 2012 R2 box which will end up being a Jenkins build server. Attempting to do so gives an error saying that I need to install KB 2919355.    So I attempt to download the right KB from the . The two files that I would assume to work are either Windows8.1-KB2919355-x64.msu and Windows8.1-KB2919355-x86.msu (just to try) and neither update work, saying that the update is not applicable.    I've not been able to get this working and I haven't been able to find a proper way to fix this. Can anyone offer any suggestions or solutions? Thanks! Short story about dead soldiers bodies being reused Synthetic division of polynomials by factor of the form $(ax+b)$ Mute conversations on Skype I'm in a conversation and I don't really want to leave because the people there keep adding me back so it's just whatever. But I would like to mute the conversation or something like I do on Facebook so I won't take notifications or anything from there unless I press on the group and see what's going on. Because for now I have my Skype having a new notifications every half a second.  Any solutions to that? delay JQuery effects I want to fade out an element and all its child elements after a delay of a few seconds. but I haven't found a way to specify that an effect should start after a specified time delay. When should I use "a" versus "an" in front of a word beginning with the letter h? A basic grammar rule is to use an instead of a before a vowel sound. Given that historic is not pronounced with a silent h, I use “a historic”. Is this correct? What about heroic? Should be “It was a heroic act” or “It was an heroic act”?  I remember reading somewhere that the h is sometimes silent, in which case it’s an, and when the h is pronounced, it’s a. But then I also remember reading that it depends on which syllable is stressed. And I also think I read somewhere that it might differ between British and American English.  Personally, I pronounce the h, and believe that a is correct. I find that it sounds incorrect to use an and pronounce heroic without the h.  So how do I know when to use a and when to use an with a word beginning with the letter h? Are both acceptable or is there one that is correct? If I run  export TEST=foo echo $TEST   It outputs foo.  If I run  TEST=foo echo $TEST   It does not. How can I get this functionality without using export or a script? The locus of the intersection point of two perpendicular tangents to a given ellipse Divergence of $\frac{ \hat {\bf r}}{r^2} \equiv \frac{{\bf r}}{r^3}$, what is the 'paradox'? Is the matrix diagonalizable for all values of t? 3-regular graphs with no bridges Problem. Use Tutte's 1-factor theorem to prove that every 3-regular graph with no bridges has a 1-factor.  I honestly have no idea how to approach this problem. I have drawn a couple of graphs to gain some insight to no avail. Any hints or tips will be greatly appreciated. Why is the change in Hamiltonian for an active infinitesimal canonical transformation defined the way it is? I'm trying to understand infinitesimal canonical transformations and conservation theorems (section 9.6 Goldstein ed3). My specific problem is with understanding eq 9.104,         $\partial H = H(B) - K(A^{'}) $, where $\partial H$ represents the change in the hamiltonian under an infinitesimal canonical transformation (from the active view point ofc). The issue only arises for generating functions that explicitly depend on time.  Here's what I've thought of so far. I understand what $K$ is from the passive viewpoint (or so I think), its the hamiltonian that would furnish Hamilton's equations for the transformed variables $Q=q+ \delta q$ and $P = p + \delta p$. In the specific case of the generating function being a time dependent hamiltonian, $K = H + \delta t \frac{\partial H}{\partial t} = H + \delta t\dot H$, which makes sense because once you transform the variables to what they'll be in time $\delta t$, you'll also need to add on a term that comes from the Hamiltonian being at a later time $t+ \delta t$.   In the book, this is explained as a transformation depending on time changes the hamiltonian, so $H(A) \rightarrow K(A^{'}) $. Which I sorta get. But why not for $H(B)$? And what about the case when the Hamiltonian is time dependent and it is the generating function? Is $H(B)$ at a later time then?   Note: $A$ represents the original variables, $B$ is the transformed variables in the active sense, so in the same phase space as $A$, and $A^{'}$ is the same point as A but in the transformed phase space (passive). Show that there's no continuous function that takes each of its values $f(x)$ exactly twice. I need to prove the following:  There's no continuous function $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ that takes each of its values $f(x)$, $x\in [a,b]$  exactly twice.  First of all, I didn't understand the question. For example $x^2$ takes $1$ twice, in the interval $[-1,1]$. Is it saying that it does not occur for all $x$ in the interval? But what about $f(x) = c$? Is it saying that it does not occur only exactly $2$ times, then? I have no idea about how to prove it. I know that for $f(x)$ such that $f(a)&lt;f(x)&lt;f(b)$, if $f$ is continuous then there is a $c\in [a,b]$ such that $f(c) = f(x)$.  Now, there's the following proof in my book and I really wanted to understand it, instead of just getting a new proof  Since the interval $[a,b]$ has only $2$ extreme points, then the maximum or minimum of $f$ must be in a point $c\in int([a,b])$ and and in another point $d\in [a,b]$. Then, there exists $\delta&gt;0$ such that in the intervals $[c-\delta, c), (c,c+\delta)$ (and if $d$ is not extreme of $[a,b]$, $[d-\delta, d]$) the function takes values that are less than $f(c) = f(d)$. Let $A$ be the greatest of the numbers $f(c-\delta), f(c+\delta), f(d-\delta)$. By the intermediate value theorem, there are $x\in [c-\delta, c), y\in (c, c+\delta]$ and $z\in [d-\delta, d)$ such that $f(x)=f(y)=f(z)=A$. Contradiction.   Well, why the last part? Why is it that I can apply the intermediate value theorem to these values? For example, $&lt;f(c-\delta)&lt;p&lt;f(c)$, then by the theorem I know that there exists $m\in [c-\delta, c)$ such that $f(m) = p$. Same for the other intervals. But what guarantees thhat the greatest of the values between  $x\in [c-\delta, c), y\in (c, c+\delta]$ will be inside the intervals $[c-\delta), c), (c,c+\delta), [d-\delta, d)$?