TSA007 suitcase reset button stuck
TSA lock reset button stuck and now lock button is also stuck
Can I connect copper wire to aluminum wire? Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile run" Why are year, pound and mile in the singular form in the phrases below?   five-year-old children  20 pound note 10 mile run   Is that because they're acting as adjectives, which are always invariable in English?  Is it incorrect to say...   five-years-old children? 20 pounds note? 10 miles run? Do sensors wear out? We all know that shutters wear out and they have a limited number of actuation's.  The question I have is, do sensors wear out too? Do they suffer any kind of damage after each shot?  Should I be concerned about this or is the sensor lifespan way longer than the shutter lifespan? Why does cout print char arrays differently from other arrays? I'm using C++ to understand how exactly pointers work. I have this piece of code using arrays, which I'm using just to understand how the equivalent works with pointers.  int main() {         int arr[10] = {1,2,3};         char arr2[10] = {'c','i','a','o','\0'};     cout &lt;&lt; arr &lt;&lt; endl;     cout &lt;&lt; arr2 &lt;&lt; endl; }   However when I run this, arr outputs the address of the first element of the array of ints (as expected) but arr2 doesn't output the address of the first element of the array of chars; it actually prints "ciao".  What is it that I'm missing or that I haven't learned yet about this? How do I make my glasses look realistic? Some faces of a model don't respond to UV Mapping I can't seem to get these particular faces to take the UV Mapping. I selected the entire object, entered edit mode, hit U>Unwrap.   The rest of the mesh takes the uv wrapping, but not those faces for some reason.    It looks normal in solid mode.     Does anyone know what could be causing this? Does timbre consist in pitch and volume? I read that the physical properties of a sound wave correspond to its audible qualities: pitch, volume, and timbre. However, an oscilloscope uses only two-dimensions to accurately depict the physical properties of a wave. Intuitively, pitch and volume seem more basic than timbre does, so I surmise that timbre must consist in those two properties.    Does timbre consist in those two properties? How do two-dimensional waveform diagrams depict three properties of sound waves? Checking integrity of my server data Minor "you have already raised this type of flag" bug? I flagged something as spam, then was only 90% sure I'd done so, so I clicked the flag link again to check. It showed me this:    I had, of course, only raised the spam flag, not the offensive/abusive/hate flag, so the latter probably shouldn't be saying I did.    Ah, this may be a duplicate, I didn't search enough:        And if so, it's been around a while. Today, we had a math class, where we had to show, that $a_{100} &gt; 14$ for  $$a_0 = 1;\qquad a_{n+1} = a_n + a_n^{-1}$$  Apart from this task, I asked myself: Is there a closed form for this sequence? Since I didn't find an answer by myself, can somebody tell me, whether such a closed form exists, and if yes what it is? Where is the denoise option in 2.90? "Happen to know" meaning "Do you happen to know is if she has a boyfriend?"   What does the above sentence means . I heard those line in the movie 'the social network' and I would like to know when do we use this phrase "happen to know" . How To: Execute command line in C#, get STD OUT results How do I execute a command-line program from C# and get back the STD OUT results? Specifically, I want to execute DIFF on two files that are programmatically selected and write the results to a text box. Run a batch file in a completely hidden way Question  If $|G|=p^3$ and $G$ is not abelian show that $G'=Z(G)$  Attempt   Since $|G|=p^3$ then $G$ is solvable and let $$1\leq G^{(n-1)}\leq...\leq G^{(n)}=G,(1)$$  be its derived series.We know that $G^{(n-1)}$ is an abelian subgroup of $G$ so $|G^{(n-1)}|=p$ or $p^2$ (since $G$ is not abelian).Hence we have that $\bigg|\dfrac{G}{G^{(n-1)}}\bigg|=p$ or $p^2$ so $\dfrac{G}{G^{(n-1)}}$ is abelian $\Rightarrow G'\leq G^{(n-1)}$ so $(1)$ is $1\leq G' \leq G,(2)$.   Furthermore, $Z(G)\not=1$ (since $G$ is a $p-$group) and $\dfrac{G}{Z(G)}$ is abelian $\Rightarrow G'\leq Z(G)$  Is this correct so far? How could I continue? I found Sean Carroll's "A No Nonsense Introduction to General Relativity" (about page .  pdf ), a 24-page overview of the topic, very helpful for beginning study.  It all got me over the hump of learning the meaning of various terms associated with GR, most of which I had heard before without understanding.  It also outlined the most important examples.  Is there a similar document for quantum field theory, which presents the main equations, briefly describes the main ideas, and summarizes the most important applications and results so that the reader can feel the lay of the land before studying in depth? Book identification about boy who gets computer zapped into head I'm having trouble understanding Cantor's diagonal argument.  Specifically, I do not understand how it proves that something is "uncountable".  My understanding of the argument is that it takes the following form (modified slightly from the  article, assuming base 2, where the numbers must be from the set $ \lbrace 0,1 \rbrace $):  \begin{align} s_1 &amp;= (\mathbf{0},1,0,\dots)\\ s_2 &amp;= (1,\mathbf{1},0,\dots)\\ s_3 &amp;= (0,0,\mathbf{1},\dots)\\ \vdots &amp;= (s_n \text{ continues}) \end{align}  In this case, the diagonal number is the bold diagonal numbers $(0, 1, 1)$, which when "flipped" is $(1,0,0)$, neither of which is $s_1$, $s_2$, or $s_3$.  My question, or misunderstanding, is: When there exists the possibility that more $s_n$ exist, as is the case in the example above, how does this "prove" anything?  For example:  \begin{align} s_0 &amp;= (1,0,0,\mathbf{0},\dots)\ \ \textrm{ (...the wikipedia flipped diagonal)}\\ s_1 &amp;= (\mathbf{0},1,0,\dots)\\ s_2 &amp;= (1,\mathbf{1},0,\dots)\\ s_3 &amp;= (0,0,\mathbf{1},\dots)\\ s_4 &amp;= (0,1,1,\mathbf{1},\dots)\\ s_4 &amp;= (1,0,0,\mathbf{1},\dots)\ \ \textrm{ (...alternate, flipped } s_4\textrm{)}\\ s_5 &amp;= (1,0,0,0,\dots)\\ s_6 &amp;= (1,0,0,1,\dots)\\ \vdots &amp;= (s_n \text{ continues}) \end{align}  In other words, as long as there is a $\dots \text{ continues}$ at the end, the very next number could be the "impossible diagonal number", with the caveat that it's not strictly identical to the "impossible diagonal number" as the wikipedia article defines it:     For each $m$ and $n$ let $s_{n,m}$ be the $m^{th}$ element of the $n^{th}$ sequence on the list; so for each $n$,      $$s_n = (s_{n,1}, s_{n,2}, s_{n,3}, s_{n,4}, \dots).$$      ...snip...      Otherwise, it would be possible by the above process to construct a sequence $s_0$ which would both be in $T$ (because it is a sequence of 0s and 1s which is by the definition of $T$ in $T$) and at the same time not in $T$ (because we can deliberately construct it not to be in the list). $T$, containing all such sequences, must contain $s_0$, which is just such a sequence. But since $s_0$ does not appear anywhere on the list, $T$ cannot contain $s_0$.      Therefore $T$ cannot be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. In other words, it is uncountable.   I'm not sure this definition is correct, because if we assume that $m = (1, \dots)$, then this definition says that "$s_n$ is equal to itself"&mdadsh;there is no "diagonalization" in this particular description of the argument, nor does it incorporate the "flipping" part of the argument, never mind the fact that we have very clearly constructed just such an impossible $T$ list above.  An attempt to correct the "diagonalization" and "flipping" problem:  $$s_n = (\lnot s_{m,m}, \lnot s_{m,m}, \dots) \quad \text{where $m$ is the element index and} \quad\begin{equation}\lnot s_{m,m} = \begin{cases}0 &amp; \mathrm{if\ } s_{m,m} = 1\\1 &amp; \mathrm{if\ } s_{m,m} = 0\end{cases}\end{equation}$$  This definition doesn't quite work either, as we immediately run in to problems with just $s_1 = (0),$ which is impossible because by definition $s_1$ must be $ = (1)$ if $s_1 = (0)$, which would also be impossible because...   Or more generally, with the revised definition there is a contradiction whenever $n = m$, which would seem to invalidate the revised formulation of the argument / proof.  Nothing about this argument / proof makes any sense to me, nor why it only applies to real numbers and makes them "uncountable". As near as I can tell it would seem to apply equal well to natural numbers, which are "countable".  What am I missing? Profile Bug - Reputation Summary Not Displaying All Lines I am looking for a quick way to sleep without closing the lid, or using the mouse.  If it matters, I have Lion version OS and a MacBook Air.