( "p:first" ) vs ("p").first() Jquery
jQuery :first vs. .first()
When I see someone else being embarrassed / humiliated, for example a singer forgetting their words in a concert, I would say something like "I feel embarrassed for them". But is there a better word to describe this feeling?  I would say it's a mix of:   Empathetic discomfort for someone else's humiliation Tension; hope that spectators will be forgiving Frustration that I cannot help them   Other scenarios I would feel the same emotion:   Seeing someone make a presentation, the slides are all out of order, and their face gets red with embarrassment while there's a tense silence in the room. Seeing someone make an embarrassing social blunder in front of unforgiving people. Seeing a speaker who keeps making a distracting and annoying gesture, and they don't realize that the whole audience is annoyed. Seeing someone be taken advantage of, like seeing someone naively and happily accept a terrible offer on a car. Seeing a person of strong image (for example the CEO of your company) do something like accidentally leave their webcam on after a conference call, and employees see him/her let out a big burp and pick their nose or something.   In these cases it's important that the audience is not forgiving, even if they don't confront the person about it. The person may or may not know they are being humiliated.  "Pity" as proposed in an answer seems very close, but I think it lacks a few components. I think "pity" has a chronic connotation - that you are referring to the general state of things rather than a specific event.  I think "pity" also depends on the subject suffering, but in my example they are often oblivious.  It could very well be that there is no word for this at all.  NOTE: Some people do not feel the same way I do in this scenario, so you may not think this question makes any sense. Topologist's sine curve is connected I just came across the example of the topologist's sine curve that is connected but not path-connected. The rigorous proof of the non-path-connectedness can be found .   But how can I prove that the curve is connected? To be honest, even intuitively I am not being able to see that the curve is connected. I am thinking if it is proved that the limit point of $\sin(1/x)$ as $x \to 0=0$, then it would be proved. But, why is this true? IMO, this limit doesn't exist. Intuitively also, it seems that the graph would behave crazily and not approach a particular value as a tends to $0.$  EDIT (Brett Frankel): There are a few different working definitions of the topologist's since curve. For the sake of clarity/consistency, I have copied below the definition used in the linked post: $$ y(x) = \begin{cases} \sin\left(\frac{1}{x}\right) &amp; \mbox{if $0\lt x \lt 1$,}\\\ 0 &amp; \mbox{if $x=0$,}\end{cases}$$ Is my Geoserver "Direct WMS Integration" working? What is the right way to indent your source code? Can't use String#trim as a callback for Array#map Change multiple filenames by replacing a character $\int_0^\infty \frac{\sin(x^2+ax)}{x}\,dx$ converges I want to show that the following converges for $a\ge 0$ $$\int_0^\infty \frac{\sin(x^2+ax)}{x}\,dx$$  We can show that $\lim_{x\to 0} \frac{\sin(x^2+ax)}{x} = a$, and with that fact it's straightforward to prove that $$\left|\int_0^\delta\frac{\sin(x^2+ax)}{x}\,dx \right|&lt; \infty$$ where $\delta &gt;0$ is a constant.  However I'm having trouble showing that the function decays quickly enough as $x$ goes to infinity. I know how to prove this when taking the integral of $\sin(ax)/x$, but that $x^2$ is causing me problems.  Any ideas? Thanks. irrationality of $\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}$. The fact that there exists irrational number $a,b$ such that $a^b$ is rational is proved by the law of excluded middle, but I read somewhere that irrationality of $\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}$ is proved constructively. Do you know the proof? I'm wondering about the period character . used as a shortcut for the local computer name.  You can use it when logging into Windows 7, for example, to specify that the user account you're entering belongs to the local computer rather than to a domain:  .\MyLocalUserAccount   And you can use it within a Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) query to indicate that the target is the local computer rather than a remote computer.  You can also use it when working with named pipes to for similar purposes.  However, you cannot use it as the UNC network name for the computer, like this:  \\.\MyShare   Does this character have an official name (e.g. "LocalHostToken") and when and where can it be used for this purpose? notify-send not working under ssh I have 3987MB of RAM on my laptop. Task (System) Manager says that I am using 700MB of this RAM, whilst the command "free -m" says I am using nearly 1500MB. Which one is correct and why do they show two different values?   Thanks for any help. Finding center and radius of circumscribed triangle Why does locking the rear tires on a vehicle cause it to spin? are often used in motor-sports and stunt driving to turn around tight corners.  Essentially, the driver applies the handbrake as he enters the turn, in order to "kick out" the back end and slide the vehicle around the corner.  However, applying the handbrake hard enough to lock the rear wheels while traveling straight will cause the rear of the vehicle to "kick out".  Given enough speed, the vehicle will spin 180 degrees.  Why do sliding wheels on a car want to "get in front" of rolling wheels? No file output after rendering? I usually am able to render successfully to the c:\tmp folder, but when I came into work today, I rendered out the image on my work laptop, and everything seems to work, but I'm not getting an output to the tmp directory.  Does anyone know how to make this work? Prove that $ m_{a} \geq m_{g} \geq m_{h} $ using strict inequalities unless $ a = b $. $ m_{a} = \frac{1}{2} (a + b) $   $ m_{g} =  \sqrt{ab} $   $ \frac{1}{m_{h}} = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{a} + \frac{1}{b})$   Attempted Solution:  I believe I have shown the first step, which is $ m_{a} \geq m_{g} $ but i'm stuck on showing $ m_{g} \geq m_{h} $  $ \frac{a + b}{2} &gt; \sqrt{ab} $  $ (\frac{a + b}{2})^2 &gt; (\sqrt{ab})^2 $  $\frac{a^2 + 2ab + b^2}{4} &gt; ab$  $a^2 + 2ab + b^2 &gt; 4ab $  $a^2 -2ab + b^2 &gt; 0 $  $(a - b)^2 &gt; 0 $   so if $a = b$ we have $(a -b)^2 \geq 0$  Therefore, $m_{a} \geq m_{g} $  Now, i'm not sure if that is correct or not, if not can you please guide me to the complete solution or if I am correct on this part, provide a solution for $m_{g} \geq m_{h} $ Can I make a script always execute as root? resolution is undefined in XeTeX so the following code will produce different values when compiled with pdfTeX and XeTeX.  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{graphicx}  \newsavebox\IBox \savebox\IBox{\includegraphics[scale=1]{koala.jpg}}  \begin{document} \the\wd\IBox \end{document}   How to force pdfTeX and XeTeX to produce the same measurement for the imported image? Passing a varible from jQuery to PHP \xymatrix undefined There was a reason why I constantly failed physics at school and university, and that reason was, apart from the fact I was immensely lazy, that I mentally refused to &quot;believe&quot; more advanced stuff until I understand the fundamentals (which I, eventually, never did). As such, one of the most fundamental things in physics that I still don't understand (a year after dropping out from the university) is the concept of . No one cared to explain what a field actually is, they just used to throw in a bunch of formulas and everyone was content. The school textbook definition for a field (electromagnetic in this particular case, but they were similar), as I remember it, goes like:  An electromagnetic field is a special kind of substance by which charged moving particles or physical bodies with a magnetic moment interact.  A special kind of substance, are they for real? This sounds like the authors themselves didn't quite understand what a field is so they decided to throw in a bunch of buzzwords to make it sounds right. I'm fine with the second half but a special kind of substance really bugs me, so I'd like to focus on that. Is a field material? Apparently, it isn't. It doesn't consist of particles like my laptop or even the light. If it isn't material, is it real or is it just a concept that helps to explain our observations? While this is prone to speculations, I think we can agree that in scope of this discussion particles actually do exist and laws of physics don't (the latter are nothing but human ideas so I suspect Universe doesn't &quot;know&quot; a thing about them, at least if we're talking raw matter and don't take it on metalevel where human knowledge, being a part of the Universe, makes the Universe contain laws of physics). Any laws are only a product of human thinking while the stars are likely to exist without us homo sapiens messing around. Or am I wrong here too? I hope you already see why I hate physics. Is a field not material but still real? Can something &quot;not touchable&quot; by definition be considered part of our Universe by physicists? I used to imagine that a &quot;snapshot&quot; of our Universe in time would contain information about each particle and its position, and this would've been enough to &quot;de&quot; it but I guess my programmer metaphors are largely off the track. (Oh, and I know that the uncertainty principle makes such (de)serialization impossible — I only mean that I thought the Universe can be &quot;defined&quot; as the set of all material objects in it). Is such assumption false? At this point, if fields indeed are not material but are part of the Universe, I don't really see how they are different from  except for perhaps a more geeky flavor. When I talked about this with the teacher who helped me to prepare for the exams (which I did pass, by the way, it was before I dropped out), she said to me that, if I wanted hardcore definitions,  a field is a function that returns a value for a point in space.  Now this finally makes a hell lot of sense to me but I still don't understand how mathematical functions can be a part of the Universe and shape the reality.