Will moving some ecommerce products from one domain to another with redirects cause SEO penalties?
ecommerce item deleted by user, 301 redirect to HOME PAGE or 404 not found?
strip last comma from get_the_category Can a lingering injury that requires "magical healing of 6th level or higher" be healed by an upcast lower-level spell? The  table in the DMG (p. 272) contains some wounds that can only be fixed by powerful healing magic, for instance:     Horrible Scar. You are disfigured to the extent that the wound cannot be easily concealed. You have disadvantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks and advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. Magical healing of 6th level or higher, such as heal and regenerate, removes the injury.   Can the necessary magical healing described here be a lower-level spell (such as cure wounds) that is upcast to 6th level? Or must it be a healing spell that is already 6th level or above before upcasting? Page to Run Classes I have a urgent requirement to make a page in which list of all classes be there with the check box embedded and having button Run. If i select one or more than one classes and click on run button(Run Test) the test class associate with the particular class should run. please help me out of this requirement.  PageLayout Extract URLs from text in PHP Why didn't the Ministry use owls to find Sirius? Harry, before the Triwizard Tournament, was able to send owls to Sirius when he was in hiding (not at Grimmauld Place) just by telling them "just find him, will you?", and the owl would come back a few days later with an answer. This doesn't happen with Hedwig only, because, if I recall correctly, he uses school owls as well.  If finding Sirius was as easy as telling an owl "find him", and a 13-year-old wizard could do it, how come the Ministry had no clue as to where he was? They could've sent an owl with a summons and followed it from a distance.  Two theories, neither mentioned in the book, and both a bit unlikely:   He was living as a dog and -hopefully- the Ministry would not be able to recognize him. Unlikely because the owl would have got there anyway, so they would have guessed the dog was Sirius in disguise, not necessarily as an animagus, but maybe he could perform human-animal transfiguration (remember he was brilliant at school).. Kingsley Shacklebolt was already in charge of the hunt and Dumbledore told him Sirius was innocent and all that. Then, Kingsley would have prevented the Ministry from using any method that could've actually worked. Unlikely because they could've used owls before Dumbledore's tip, when Kingsley didn't know Sirius was innocent, and also because Kingsley was quite powerful and had the support of Crouch and others at the Ministry, so if he was in charge, they would probably have succeeded.   Your thoughts? is a light side power that many Jedi, including  are capable of. In Episode I, Qui-Gon uses it twice (once to outrun droids and once on Jar Jar's tongue), Obi-Wan uses it once and Anakin uses high speed reflexes for the entire duration of the pod race with no formal training.  According to  the power has a high drain and requires a longer recovery period than other powers. And then of course there are hilarious drawbacks such as .  But why wasn't this power used in the following scenarios (and many, many others):   The Redshirt Jedi who accompanied Windu to arrest Palpatine, before they were summarily dispatched to the Nether. Qui-Gonn, to avoid a lightsaber through his gut. Yoda, to avoid flying senate seats. By Windu, who is supposedly a notable practitioner. What is the expected minimum euclidean distance between $N$ points uniformly and independently chosen on the shell(sphere) of 3-D ball of radius $R$?   Note that the expected minimum distance might be difficult to compute, so a good lower bound is also fine.   My approach  I take the approach similar to this   .   Suppose we put $N$ circles of radius $r$ uniformly on the surface of the ball. Therefore we could compute the expected minimum distance by the following expression \begin{align} E[D]=\int_0^\infty P(D&gt;t) dt. \end{align}  So, it remains to compute  $P(D&gt;t)$. Actually, since we are after a lower bound on  $E[D]$ it is enought to give a lower bound on $P(D&gt;t)$.  Let $S_i$ be the event that the pair of circles does not intersect which should be given by \begin{align} P(S_i) =  \frac{ Surf(R)-Surf(r)}{Surf(R)}= 1-\frac{  \pi r^2}{ 4\pi R^2}=1-\frac{ r^2}{ 4 R^2} \end{align}  Now the probability that euclidean minimum distance $D$ between $N$ balls is bigger than $t$ should be similar to  \begin{align} P[ D \ge t] \stackrel{?}{=}  P[ \cap S_i] \end{align} However, I think we somehow need to converte from the geodesic distance to euclidean distance but I am not very sure how to do that? If the velocity is a relative quantity, will it make inconsistent equations when applying it to the conservation of energy equations?  For example:  In the train moving at $V$ relative to ground, there is an object moving at $v$ relative to the frame in the same direction the frame moves. Observer on the ground calculates the object kinetic energy as $\frac{1}{2}m(v+V)^2$. However, another observer on the frame calculates the energy as $\frac{1}{2}mv^2$. When each of these equations is plugged into the conservation of energy, they will result in 2 distinct results (I think). How can I take shallow depth of field photos with a point-and-shoot camera? I have a compact digital camera, and in macro mode I can manage to achieve a blurred background, if the background is far enough away. Can this be done when taking non-macro pictures, and if not, is there a way to simulate it?  When I shoot portraits with my brother's DSLR, it is quite easy to fade out the background. But with my point and shoot camera, I haven't been able to take such photos.   I choose a large aperture for my camera but it still doesn't work. I know that standing further and zooming will result in a smaller depth of field, but it doesn't seem to be enough to get the really nice "bokeh" look. I've tried macro mode, and that will work if the subject is close enough and the background far enough away, but how can it be done with non-macro pictures?   Why are DSLR cameras are so much better in this area? What are the general recommendations to do this using a compact or super-zoom camera? Wrapping a mesh around point cloud with cavities Today, after returning from vacations, I started my QGIS 1.7 and got this terrible message:    Help, anyone? Are there any areas that should be avoided and are there any steps I should take to protect myself from radiation? Why do we say the following?        I'll have an hour's wait at the airport      Today's lesson      Yesterday's programme    Two weeks' worth of groceries.      They are not possessive, or are they? Why is the possessive apostrophe used with time expressions and adverbs? biblatex, biber, is it possible to \printbibliography between two years? With biblatex and Biber, is it possible to print all the bibliography (\printbibliography) from (let's say) 2003 to 2008 in one section? And then in another section print all the bibliography from 2009 to 2016? About the term $-\nabla_{[u,v]}w$ in the definition of Riemann curvature tensor Can “does” be contracted? Checking proof for: It is possible to find addition assumptions on the sets $A$ and $B$, so $P(A)\cup P(B) = P(A\cup B)$. It is possible to find additional assumptions on the sets $A$ and $B$ so that in fact $P(A)\cup P(B) = P(A\cup B)$.  Prove that for all sets $A$ and $B$, if $A=B$ then $P(A)\cup P(B) = P(A\cup B)$.   Solution: Suppose $A=B \implies P(A) = P(B) \implies P(A) \cup P(B) = P(A)$ and $P(A \cup B) = P(A \cup A) = P(A)$.  Thus, $P(A) \cup P(B) = P(A) = P(B) = P(A \cup B)$  By containment (or inclusion), let $X \in P(A \cup B) \implies X \subseteq (A \cup B).$  $\implies X \subseteq (A \cup A) = (B \cup B) \implies X \subseteq A=B$.  $\implies X \in P(A) = P(B) \implies X \in P(A) \cup P(B)$.  $\implies P(A \cup B) \subseteq P(A) \cup P(B)$.   As $P(A \cup B) \supseteq P(A) \cup P(B)$. Thus, $P(A) \cup P(B) = P(A \cup B)$. Upgraded to 13.10 now clock settings are all disabled and clock does not display I've upgraded to 13.10 and now I don't have the standard menu clock, which I need for work.  I checked and 'indicator-datetime' is installed.  I even uninstalled/reinstalled that applet with no luck.  Also my "clock" settings under System Preferences are all disabled.  I can't change anything.  Does anyone know how I can get the old menu clock back?  Alternatively is there another menu clock app I can download?  Edit 1  Thanks for the responses    I've restarted several times and that didn't fix the issue. I just ran the 13.10 update today.  But I ran it again a few minutes ago.  I got   about 200KB in random updates.  The issue is still present after a reboot. # apt-cache policy indicator-datetime indicator-datetime: Installed: 13.10.0+13.10.20131016.2-0ubuntu1 Candidate: 13.10.0+13.10.20131016.2-0ubuntu1 Version table: *** 13.10.0+13.10.20131016.2-0ubuntu1 0     500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ saucy/main amd64 Packages     100 /var/lib/dpkg/status   Edit 2  I believe the issue is related to 'rarings' changing the systray somehow...   Or , although I haven't got that solution to work yet.  Edit 3  Because of a suggestion from RolandiXor I've check the binaries.  My system is missing 'libical.so.0' but it has 'libical.so.1'.    ldd /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/indicator-datetime-service libical.so.0 =&gt; not found   Does anyone know how to get the libical.so.0 binary that the datetime service needs but doesn't install? Given the following code (that doesn't work):  while True:     #snip: print out current state     while True:         ok = get_input("Is this ok? (y/n)")         if ok.lower() == "y": break 2 #this doesn't work :(         if ok.lower() == "n": break     #do more processing with menus and stuff   Is there a way to make this work? Or do I have do one check to break out of the input loop, then another, more limited, check in the outside loop to break out all together if the user is satisfied? Why is "chmod -R 777 /" destructive? This is a  about File Permission and Why 777 is "destructive".   I'm not asking how to fix this problem, as there are a ton of references of that already on Server Fault (reinstall OS). Why does it do anything destructive at all?  If you've ever ran this command you pretty much immediately destroy your operating system. I'm not clear why removing restrictions has any impact on existing processes. For example, if I don't have read access to something and after a quick mistype in the terminal suddenly I now have access well... why does that cause Linux to break?