I want to say parking of McDonald's, i.e. using an apostrophe S. Would I say McDonald's's parking?
If the cricket ground Lord's is a possessive, what if you want to describe something belonging to Lord's? Would you say:     I was very impressed by Lord's's customer services.   It doesn't look right, so what is the correct way of writing it?
Draft watermark image just in a \section Is it possible to have a draft watermark only in a \section?  EDIT:  I have in a document more then one \section, and I need the draftwatermark just in some \section. Unfortunately the section with and without the draftwatermark share the page. For example I want the draftwatermark under the text of just one of these sections A,B,C  \documentclass{article}  \usepackage{kantlipsum} % supply mock text  \begin{document}  \section{A}  \kant[2]  \section{B}  \kant[2-4]  \section{C}  \kant[2]  \end{document} Statistical interpretation of Maximum Entropy Distribution I have used the principle of maximum entropy to justify the use of several distributions in various settings; however, I have yet to be able to formulate a statistical, as opposed to information-theoretic, interpretation of maximum entropy. In other words, what does maximizing the entropy imply about the statistical properties of the distribution?   Has anyone run across or perhaps discovered yourself a statistical interpretation of max. entropy distributions that does not appeal to information, but only to probabilistic concepts?  As an example of such an interpretation (not necessarily true): "For an interval of arbitrary length L on the domain of the RV (assuming its 1-d continuous for simplicity), the maximum probability that can be contained in this interval is minimized by the maximum entropy distribution."  So, you see there is no talk about "informativeness" or other more philosophical ideas, just probabilistic implications. I have seen some examples about using "in" with time expressions. They give some examples as shown below:     I will leave for vacation in a month. (Exactly one month from now I   will go on vacation.)      We’ll be there in an hour.  (Exactly one hour will go by and then we   will arrive.)   But these comments confused me. Then I looked the usage of "in" up in a dictionary and it says about usage of "in" with time expressions :"before or at the end of a particular period". I think the comments and the definition in the dictionary contradict each other?    I have examples of mine:     1- Dinner will be ready in ten minutes. (Maybe dinner will be   ready at the 5th minute? or 8th. Does it strictly mean dinner will be   ready at the end of the ten minutes?)      2- My letter arrived in two days. ( Does that mean it took   exactly two days to arrive? or Could it be just one day because he/she   doesnt remember the exact time?)      3- Imagine you are on the first day of a month and your friend says:   I will be going outside the country in this month. (Does that mean he/she could go tomorrow or ten days later or at the end of the   month?)      4- He can run a mile in 5 minutes. ( Does that mean he has to   spent entire 5 minutes to run a mile? Could it be 4 or 4.5 minutes?) Book set underground everyone lives in pods woman wants to see her son Can anyone help me identify this book please? I read a book in the 80s about a woman living underground in a pod. Everyone had a big tv which gave them news etc (but it was starting to go wrong) and their food was delivered direct to their pod.  They weren't allowed to go to the earth surface as it was supposedly contaminated (post-war?). She gets a message from her son on the other side of the world and she takes the tube train from outside her pod and then some sort of aircraft to see him and eventually gets onto the surface of the earth and breathes the air and meets free people. What is meant by a "random variable"? Optimal step size in gradient descent How do you set, clear, and toggle a single bit? ssh to private-ip I have a computer with CentOS (computer A) that configured as has an private ip 10.150.5.141 (with restricted firewall), can access internet and my ArchLinux VPS (computer B) with real ip w.x.y.z  How can I make another pc (computer C) that could access computer B to connect to computer A, but computer C cannot connect to computer A directly (because it's on A's own private network)?  I know that a tunnel can open local ports to another computer:port, but how to do the opposite?  I want to access computer A using ssh through computer B but computer B cannot access computer A, because the network on computer A is restrictive (can go out, but can't go in, because I have no access to their router)  I want something like this:  ssh -connect-to w.x.y.z:22 -open-port vvv -forward-to 10.150.5.141 -port 22   so that when I ssh w.x.y.z:vvv from computer C it will forwarded to private network 10.150.5.141:22. SF novel about one-way scientific expedition to inhabited planet, where telepathic aliens "talk" sort of ++like this++ and ~*~this~*~ I'm looking for a novel I read in the mid-to-late 1990s. It was a science fiction novel about an expedition of scientists sent at sub-light-speed (maybe in cryo-sleep?) to investigate a star system. Once there they set up a permanent scientific outpost.  There was at least one inhabited planet in the system, with a sentient species that communicated telepathically. The aliens' speech was represented with various symbols instead of quotation marks, with each named character having (I think) its own characteristic set of symbols, as in the title of the question. The scientists are eventually able to communicate with these (generally friendly) aliens.  The thing I remember most clearly is the end of the book. This was a one-way trip for the scientists, so gradually they all die off from various causes. When the next-to-last member of the crew dies of old age, the survivor is looking for an epigraph for her funeral, and (ironically, considering my current plight) can't find it in his search of the electronic library. He finally discovers it under "humor" because it's by Mark Twain: "Wherever she was, there was Eden." (This quote, of course, I found immediately in  and many other sources; it's from Eve's Diary.)  Other pieces of information I'm less sure of:   I don't think the planet was hospitable to humans; it may have been something like a gas giant, with the aliens "swimming" through the gas. I think the scientists stayed in an orbital space station, though they may have made expeditions to the planet in vehicles or protective suits. There may have been a "twin" planet, or a moon in an eccentric orbit, that caused periodic "flares" of some sort on the aliens' planet. There might have been some conflict between the crew early on, maybe because there was a non-scientific (military) commander, or perhaps just because people have conflict. I think the author was of sort of middling fame; respected and known by SF enthusiasts, but not a superstar like Asimov or Clarke. Almost certainly male, and probably with a professional science background. I think the science was fairly authentic, although the first-contact bit was obviously highly speculative. Will “Erase Ubuntu16.10 and reinstall” keep my Win7 installation? This question is from PDE by Evans, 1st edition, Chapter 5, Problem 14. It has been posted  previously, however, I cannot quite put all the information together from the responses there. Hopefully you can help me now. The problem is as follows:     Let $U$ be bounded with a $C^1$ boundary. Show that a ''typical''   function $u \in L^p(U) \ (1 \leq p &lt; \infty)$ does not have a trace on   $\partial U$. More precisely, prove there does not exist a bounded   linear operator      \begin{equation} T:L^p(U) \to L^p(\partial U) \end{equation}      such that $Tu = \left. u \right|_{\partial U}$ whenever $u \in C(\overline{U}) \cap L^p(U)$.   So what we're trying to find is a bounded sequence of functions that go to infinity at the boundary, correct? Because then $Tu = \left. u \right|_{\partial U}$ is undefined.  I like the idea of using the $\mathrm{dist}(x, \partial U)$ function to do this. I was thinking about defining the function  \begin{equation} u(x) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{dist}(x,\partial U)}, \end{equation}  which must be in $L^p(U)$ since $U$ is bounded (hence integral of $\varepsilon$ over $U$ is finite, right?). But this function is not continuous at the boundary, and so $u \notin C(\overline{U})$. Can this be modified somehow?  Another option is to use that the boundary is $C^1$. So for each $x^0 \in \partial U$ there exists an $r &gt; 0$ and a $C^1$ function $\gamma : \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $U \cap B(x^0,r) = \{ x \in B(x^0,r) \ | \ x_n &gt; \gamma(x_1,\ldots, x_n) \}$. So around every point on the boundary we can find a ball where the n'th coordinate is greater than the $C^1$ function $\gamma$. How can we use this? Can you enter the Schengen area with a UK visa? Including all the jars in a directory within the Java classpath Advice/literature on combining items with different response scales into composite scales? Let's say I have some self-report items measured on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) and other items measured on a 4-point Likert scale (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often). Can anyone point me to literature (or practical advice) on combining these items into a composite scale? Let's assume for the sake of argument that we have some empirical evidence that items should be combined.  Some ideas:  1. Sum raw scores  Pro: Easy  Con: Max responses on the 5-point scale (originally 4's) drive up the total scale score more than max responses on the 4-point scale (originally 3's).  2. Rescale and sum  Put all of the items on a 0-1 scale and sum. So the 4-point items (0,1,2,3) would be multiplied by (4/3)/4 and the 5-point items (0,1,2,3,4) would be multiplied by 1/4, resulting in possible values of (0,.33,.66,1) and (0,.25,.50,.75,1), respectively. This way max responses on the 5-point scale (originally 4's) would not drive up the total scale score more than max responses on the 4-point scale (originally 3's).   Pro: Items would have equal weighting. (could be a con, depending on your perspective).  Con: Ignores differences in variability between items on different metrics?   3. Standardize and sum  A related approach would be to standardize all of the items (z score) and then sum.  Pro: Addresses differences in variability between items on different metrics  Con: Total scale score becomes less interpretable and sample-specific. The latter makes it hard to benchmark as a measure to be used in other settings/other samples.  4. PCA or other data reduction   4a. EFA to get factor loadings. Multiply scaled items by factor loadings.  4b. PCA to get score of first principal component.  Pro: Items weighted by influence.  Con: Same as #2. EFA-derived scores could vary a lot depending on rotation/extraction choices. Some would not advise on ordinal data.    Overall: I like #2 because it seems easier to compare results across different samples. Thoughts? Alternative ideas or concerns about the ideas presented? If $A$ is a square matrix and $A^2 = 0$ then $A=0$. Is this true? If not, provide a counter-example. This is a proof question and I am not sure how to prove it. It is obviously true if you start with $A = 0$ and square it.   I was thinking:  If $ A^2 = 0 $  then $ A A = 0 $  $ A A A^{-1} = 0 A^{-1}$  $I\,A = 0 $   but the zero matrix is not invertible and that it was not among the given conditions.  Where's a good place to start? Ignored users still appear in the 'other rooms you're in' message preview Well it might not be a huge issue to some (I suppose it depends on how you use the chat system) but when I "Ignore this user everywhere", their messages still appear on the sidebar for the 'other rooms you're in' if they say something. Albeit I can ignore this feature and the text within it, I just find it odd that I can still see it.   This is only a nuisance when you truly are annoyed by a user and ignoring them in the chat was the best possible alternative to leaving the room or starting an argument (no references here, but any long time chat user has been annoyed by some help vampire at one point in time or another and would just prefer to ignore them for good).   If you have no clue to the sidebar or preview I'm talking about: this is for you,    I have chosen to Ignore this user everywhere (Neal) and then switched to a new room, yet that users response appears in my 'preview' for the 'other rooms you're in' if he is also talking in them.  Note: My ignore of Neal was mostly due to jest, this in no way is to reflect on Neal but the chat feature (I hate to ever single anyone out here). Is there an official C# guideline for the order of items in terms of class structure?  Does it go:   Public Fields Private Fields Properties Constructors Methods ?   I'm curious if there is a hard and fast rule about the order of items? I'm kind of all over the place. I want to stick with a particular standard so I can do it everywhere.  The real problem is my more complex properties end up looking a lot like methods and they feel out of place at the top before the constructor.  Any tips/suggestions? Total order on complex numbers What theorems can I use to prove this? If I have a Xaml Window, how does one open it as a child window, and then have the parent window wait for the child to close before the parent window continues executing?