Is there a way to autorun a script?
Start script on open blender file
What is the difference in this specific breadboard wiring? I have recently installed lubuntu 11.10 on my old laptop (acer aspire 5315 celeron) and observed that fan is not working properly on lubuntu side.I find it strange that it is working perfectly under window vista.   How could I solve this problem? Denote by $M_{n \times n}(k)$ the ring of $n$ by $n$ matrices with coefficients in the field $k$.  Then why does this ring not contain any two-sided ideal?    Thanks for any clarification, and this is an exercise from the notes of Commutative Algebra by Pete L Clark, of which I thought as simple but I cannot figure it out now. Macro with lstlisting inside I have been following  about using \NewDocuentCommand with lstlisting and the accepted answer is nice except it is too big and it doesn't quite work for me.   I came up with this example to test xparse:    \documentclass{article} \usepackage{xparse} \usepackage{listings}  \ExplSyntaxOn \NewDocumentCommand{\code}{m +v}{     \begin{lstlisting}[style=#1,numbers=none,xleftmargin=0.35cm,framesep=0mm]         #2     \end{lstlisting} } \ExplSyntaxOff  \begin{document}  \code{C}{ int x = 200; unsigned int y = 0; }  \end{document}   Like stated in the  I first used m as a normal parameter and then +v as a multiline verbatim parameter, but it fails. It looks like I am still missing something... Divergent infinite series $n!e^n/n^n$ - simpler proof of divergence? $$ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n!e^n}{n^n} $$ Where $e$ is Euler's number.  Recently on calculus class we were covering convergence tests and my group got stuck with this infinite series. Our calculus teacher told us that it diverges but he doesn't see any elementary way or simple test to prove it. He told us something about Euler's Gamma function and said that he knows it diverges because of Stirling's formula but this is not quite our level yet.  I tried to think about it myself but I established only that this  is some kind of an edge case. We could generalize the problem to series of $\frac{n!a^n}{n^n}$. Then, from the ratio test we know that it converges for $a &lt;e$ and diverges for $a&gt;e$. For $a=e$ the test is inconclusive. I've also tried to compare it with various divergent series, but nothing worked...  Does anybody have any idea for a simple solution? I am writing a bash script to look for a file if it doesn't exist then create it and append this to it:  Host localhost     ForwardAgent yes   So "line then new line 'tab' then text" I think its a sensitive format.  I know you can do this:  cat temp.txt &gt;&gt; data.txt   But it seems weird since its two lines. Is there a way to append that in this format:  echo "hello" &gt;&gt; greetings.txt The interaction of TeX and Lua can be quite delicate at times.  While the former has category codes and tokens, the latter has escape sequences and datatypes.  Mixing the disparate concepts of these two worlds can lead to unexpected behaviour which favours common errors, known as gotchas. In the community wiki answer below you can find an overview of the common mistakes that people make when getting to grips with LuaTeX. I was able to post in chat with less than 20 rep by joining 20 sites I joined 20 other sites (out of the many) and even with 1 rep was able to post in any of the chatrooms. For example: In ELL, I have just 1 rep and have posted messages in its chat.  ell.stackexchange.com/users/18923/lamart This seems like a bug because I should have needed 20 rep to post. . EDIT: From , I got the idea to make this edit. To reproduce this bug/error:  Create a new SE account. Use it to make an account here. You will get 1 default rep. Choose a random SE site and use this account to get 1 rep on that random site. Repeat the above step 20 times. Now you have 1 rep on 20 network sites but the net SE rep is 20. Go to the ELL chat and ping me. (important step)  From my comment: I have now got 40 rep since people voted this question up. Initially I had net 20 rep gained by creating 20 accounts on 20 different SE sites. Those default 1rep added up to get me to 20rep and I was able to chat. The link says one needs 20 rep in any of the SE site to chat in &quot;all the other&quot; category chatrooms..... but I did not have 20 rep on ELL at that moment. I have been wondering about the differences between model paramters and model hyperparameters, as well as what their categorization means for a learning problem.  Is the distinction between model parameters and hyperparameters only about reducing the complexity of the problem or are there implications for the 'model quality' to be considered?  Let's consider an example from (1, Eq. 2.43), a linear expansion of basis functions   $$f_\theta(x) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} \theta_m h_m(x), $$  where $h_m\:\forall m=1,...,M$ is some function of $x$, $\theta=[\theta_1,...,\theta_M]^\intercal$ is a vector of the parameters of the model and $M$ is the number of basis functions.   In my understanding, we would consider $\theta$ to contain the parameters of the model, while $M$ is a .  To quote the Wikipedia article of hyperparameter that I linked above:     In machine learning, a hyperparameter is a parameter whose value is   set before the learning process begins. By contrast, the values of   other parameters are derived via training.   It makes sense treating the values in $\theta$ as parameters that should be learned from the data, similar to the coefficients in a linear model - it is surely far more reliable  and  specifying them manually would be quite annoying, although it's not impossible. But what about $M$? It surely is easier to pick some integer value for it. But would it really be terrible to determine $M$ based on the data, too? Probably not, as that is what we would do if we search a grid of possible values for the best performing one.   Let's consider the above basis expansion model and choose Gaussian kernel functions to serve as basis functions. As the Kernel itself has parameters too  this makes the problem a bit more complicated.  $$f_\theta(x) = \sum_{m=1}^{M}\theta_m K_{\lambda_m}(\mu_m,x), $$ with $\mu_1,...,\mu_m$ being the location of the kernels and $\lambda_1,...,\lambda_m$ their scales/bandwidths.  Friedman et al. write in (1, p. 36)        "In general we would like the data to dictate them as well. Including   these as parameters changes the regression problem from a   straightforward linear problem to a combinatorially hard nonlinear   problem. In practice, shortcuts such as greedy algorithms or two stage processes are used."   I see that if we were to treat $M$, $\theta_1 ... \theta_M$, $\mu_1 ... \mu_M$ and $\lambda_1 ... \lambda_M$, as model parameters, this problem would be really complex, especially with the choice of $M$ determining the number of the other parameters. But what if we simplify the model definition - let us for example use the same scale/bandwidth for each kernel, that gives us only one parameter $\lambda$. Furthermore, let's say we specify $\mu_1 ... \mu_M$ based on some heuristic, which would mean we treat it as a hyperparameter.  This gives us   $$f_{\theta,\lambda}(x) = \sum_{m=1}^{M}\theta_m K_\lambda(\mu_m,x), $$  Besides increased complexity of the involved optimization problem, does treating $\lambda$ as a parameter rather than a hyperparameter have other negative or undesired effects?      (1) Friedman, Jerome, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The   elements of statistical learning. Vol. 1. No. 10. New York: Springer   series in statistics, 2001. Are all stormtroopers as poor soldiers as the ones in the movies? In the Star Wars films we consistently witness just how poor soldiers stormtroopers are. They show very sub-par marksmanship, crappy house searching tactics, and are easily fooled and defeated by Ewoks and Rebels.   That being said, I remember reading a character guide that defined stormtroopers as the very best of the best (best marksman, above average intelligence, etc.). So, in the realm of the Expanded Universe, does the mold that the movies set continue to hold true or are they just the exceptions to the rule? Configure proxy for APT? I need to configure proxy. There wasn't apt.conf file in etc/apt/ so I've created it using nano.   But I don't understand what I need to write there. I've written  http_proxy = http://lgn:pwd@192.168.1.254:8080/ there and then restarted networking. But when I try to apt-get update - it doesn't work.   Actually I don't understand what port and ip I should write in apt.conf file(there was example with 192.168.1.254 ip and 8080 port so I decided to use them). How to fix Eclipse with OpenJDK 9 Being a fairly new user something I don't seem to be able to locate is information on whether small edits to the title are considered as trivial edits. I see the usual recommendation when suggesting an edit is:     Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.   I can see the logic in that for most cases, but for example I just read a question with a title containing "Andriod" which would be trivial in one way but also affect the ability of users to locate the question using both the site and external search engines. Would it be frowned upon to suggest an edit for those cases? Show $\inf_f\int_0^1|f'(x)-f(x)|dx=1/e$ for continuously differentiable functions with $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$. Let $C$ be the class of all real-valued continuously differentiable functions $f$ on the interval $[0,1]$ with $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$. How to show that $$\inf_{f\in C}\int_0^1|f'(x)-f(x)|dx=\frac{1}{e}?$$  I have been able to show that $1/e$ is a lower bound. Indeed, $$\begin{align*} \int_0^1|f'(x)-f(x)|dx &amp;= \int_0^1|f'(x)e^{-x}-f(x)e^{-x}|e^xdx \\ &amp;\geq \int_0^1\left(f'(x)e^{-x}-f(x)e^{-x}\right) dx \\ &amp;= \int_0^1 \frac{d\left(f(x)e^{-x}\right)}{dx}dx  \\ &amp;= f(1)e^{-1}-f(0)e^{0}\\ &amp;=\frac{1}{e}. \end{align*}$$ But how to show this is the infimum? Is there a function $f\in C$ such that we get $\int_0^1|f'(x)-f(x)|dx=1/e$? traveller's cheques; customer's requirements: use of the singular Saxon genitive (and the plural attributive) for association May I ask if the following sentence is grammatical?      Our remit is to conduct research on customer's requirements.   In my understanding, as 'customer' is a countable noun, so the plural form 'customers''' should be used instead for this general reference (without specification of certain customers).   However, I know that we can say 'traveller's cheques' - e.g.,      Traveller's cheques are available at the bank.    In this sense, actually can we say 'customer's requirements' in the first case? This problem is from Romanian G.M. and although it is very short, it is also (I think) very hard. Let $x, y, z$ real non-negative numbers such that $x+y+z=3$. Prove that   $$27 \leq (x^2+2)(y^2+2)(z^2+2) \leq 44 $$  I didn't succeed in any of the inequalities, I only managed to find the equality cases ($x=y=z=1$ for the first one and one of them $3$ and the others $0$). Any hint/idea/solution is welcome. Any real-time antivirus for Ubuntu? When you reach 10k rep, you get to see other users deleted answers. I just think it's dishonest as a system to call a feature "delete," but show that to totally random strangers in the backroom. Due to the nature of the rep, given enough time, all of the regular users would eventually reach 10k rep, no matter how insensitive or jerk they are.  There's usually a good reason why people hit "delete" to their own work. They regret writing something totally bullshit or maybe they spoke too much about their own work that they shouldn't have.  First of all, is there really a practical reason why 10k rep user should view self-deleted answers? Does the benefit really outweigh the creepiness? (Imagine if total strangers could see your deleted messages in Gmail?)  What suggestions could we make to change it? Borrowing from the email metaphor, I think it makes sense for users to "empty trash" so the items gets seriously deleted. Imho, however the deletion is implemented is not important. It could be a soft delete, SQL Delete, or physical destruction of metal plates as long as the user or the 10k rep user no longer sees the deleted item.  What are the workarounds, if we can't change the behavior?  The least we could do is stop calling it "delete" if it's actually not a "delete." Call it "hide from public" or "actually not delete" or something.  Related user voice:        Edit: Recovery of a deleted-but-good answer is a practical benefit for the community, but I see that as creepy dangerous feature. IMHO, each user should have the rights to take back his or her perfectly good answer, and that the protecting privacy outweighs the benefit or creepiness.   I understand that it's all possible to find things out from Google cache or wherever, but why promote this as default behavior? As 10k rep user, I see others deleted answers by default. @codinghorror wrote:     But like any version control system, deletions are illusory.   Anything and everything that's implemented by human is more or less illusory including phone system and the medical records. Should the government start tapping into phone lines and scanning for words? Remember, this is a question of should had we given the opportunity to design a system. In the 70's or 80's I read a short story in which 2 astronauts looking for a nice place to eat lunch choose a spot at the pole of a small desolate planet, overlooking the world's only pool of surface water.  Due to the harsh extremes of heat, and lack of water, this is the home of the planet's single living organism, which has grown slowly over eons,  surviving the daily extremes, moving slowly over the bare rock, dissolving it with acidic digestive juices to get the nutrients it needs for survival. The men watch the organism while eating their lunch, then depart, unknowingly leaving death behind them in their garbage - cigarette butts, tin cans, wrappings - a bonanza that the creature moves over to dissolve and ingest, along with the human-based microscopic organisms that will destroy the alien being. The theme of the story is that although we reach out to the stars to seek life, we are much more connected to the lowest forms of life on Earth, than to any life we may find on other planets. I don't remember the author and title.  Can someone identify the story? How to Understand the Definition of Cardinal Exponentiation I'm having trouble understanding the definition of cardinal exponentiation.  Let's start with the definitions / claims I've been given:  For any finite sets $A,B$, such that if $|A|=a$ and $|B|=b\neq 0$ then the number of functions from $A$ to $B$ is $b^a$. ( I'm guessing this is only used when both sets are finite ).  For any sets $A,B$, $B^A$ is the set of functions from $A$ to $B$.  For every set $A$, $|P(A)|=|\left \{ 0,1 \right \}^A|$  Now for the definition and why I don't understand it:  Let $a,b$ be cardinal numbers.  Let $A,B$ be sets such that $|A|=a, |B|=b$.  Then $|B^A|=b^a$.  How analagous to normal exponentiation is this and where does in differ when we introduce cardinals like $\aleph_0$ or $C$?  Is $2^2=4$ and is $\frak c^2=c\cdot c=c\times c$?