Is it OK to delete a question that didn't get much activity and post it again?  I've actually seen a user do this and gotten answer on third attempt.
I asked a question that has been marked as a duplicate. I read a lot of similar questions and explanations in advance but I couldn't find a solution. In the question that should answer my question the asker used a different (not working) approach. There is even an answer that would work for my case however I'd rather consider it as a workaround than a solution since I have seen examples using my approach.  So I would like your opinion in that case. Would it be ok to repost my question while explaining why other answers didn't help me? I edited my question but I think it's not getting any attention anymore. Naturally I will remove the old question.
How to permanently switch Caps Lock and Esc How can I permanently switch the Caps Lock and Esc key functions in Saucy? I can use this command to do it temporarily (until reboot):  /usr/bin/setxkbmap -option "caps:swapescape"   I tried adding that command as a Startup Application, but it doesn't seem to do anything. There is no set of all sets.. So there are a few posts about this already, but they skip over the problem I have.  The proof of Cantor's theorem elegantly shows that if we consider $f:A\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(A)$, the set $B=\{x\in A : x\not\in f(x) \}$ by its definition cannot lie in the image of $f$, precluding it from being a bijection - hence power sets have strictly greater cardinality.  But now, I thought one (obvious) way to characterise the "set of all sets" would be $S=\mathcal{P}(S)$, as indeed, it contains all possible sets (perhaps here is the problem, but I don't immediately see how using this as a definition for the set of all sets is bad). Now consider simply taking the identity function $i:S\rightarrow S$. Then $B=\{x\in S : x\not\in x \}$ - the set of all sets which do not contain themselves. But this doesn't exist. It's exactly the set of Russell's paradox. If this isn't a set, and so is not in $S$, then the proof no longer offers an obstruction to $i$ being surjective.    Each other post I've seen on the matter uses Cantor's theorem to show such a set doesn't exist. My query is to find that something else that must be happening, since I think the proof has issues for this particular set. I'm expecting other issues to arise with the definition $S=\mathcal{P}(S)$... I'm using Linux (centos) machine, I already connected to the other system using ssh. Now my question is how can I copy files from one system to another system?  Suppose, in my environment, I have two system like System A and System B. I'm using System A machine and some other using System B machine.  How can I copy a file from System B to System A? And, copy a file from System A to System B? You "show" someone a picture. You "---" someone a song? In , we have a verb meaning &quot;to show&quot; corresponding to &quot;to see/to look&quot;, and we have a different verb corresponding to &quot;to hear/to listen&quot;:  inti tara stampa (you look at a picture.) ---- jiena nurilek stampa (I show you a picture) inti tisma' diska (you listen to a song.) ----- jiena nsemmagħlek diska (I 'show' you a song)  In English, do you &quot;show someone a song&quot; (sounds weird to me) or is there a verb that corresponds more directly to the Maltese insemmgħek? What does the following for loop syntax mean in C? What is wrong with code snippets/blocks on Stack Overflow? I wasn't following Meta Stack Overflow too closely so maybe something was changed that I'm not aware of. But each time I paste a snippet from a Python console I'm getting wrong formatting. What I'm doing wrong? It seems that &gt;&gt;&gt; is confusing for Stack Overflow. I've tried to escape it with backslashes, and it was working fine in preview but doesn't work after the question is rendered.  I was able to observe that problem on: recent Chrome (Windows, Mac), Safari 4 (Mac).  Here is  I wasn't able to make right.  Funny, I think the snippets are rendered just fine on Meta Stack Overflow. Here is one:  &gt;&gt;&gt; def throw(): raise Exception()  ...  &gt;&gt;&gt; a=1 &gt;&gt;&gt; a=throw() Traceback (most recent call last):   File "&lt;stdin&gt;", line 1, in &lt;module&gt;   File "&lt;stdin&gt;", line 1, in throw Exception &gt;&gt;&gt; a 1 Are smaller p-values more convincing? I have a Redstone Power loop that connects to a Command Block that is set to kill all entities except for myself (/kill @e[type=!Player]), because I'm building a creative map, but don't want slimes all over the place. Problem is if I want to place an Item Frame than the Command Block kills it.  So, is there anyway to exclude items from getting deleted, or make it so it will only target mobs? How to promote algebraic expressions to operators in quantum mechanics? Okay, I know that in quantum mechanics the quantum observable is obtained from the classical observable by the prescription   $$ X \rightarrow x,\quad P \rightarrow -i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x} $$   in the position basis. Now my questions are:    What if $x$ or $p$ appears in the denominator in a classical expression?  How to promote this to a quantum expression? What would be the meaning of division by an operator?   My expression likely contains a mixture of $x$ and $p$. For e.g., it could contain terms like $$\frac{p}{x^2}$$ or $$\frac{xp}{(x^2 + a^2)^{3/2}}.$$    How to resolve products of non-commuting operators like $x$, $p$ in a satisfactory way? How to prove $\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} (1+\frac1n)^n = e$? For usability reasons, for example in , the 'viewed' counter should show as  ...instead of... . It's much harder to decipher that there are a million views on the question just by looking at it.  Some people in the comments pointed out internationalization concerns with it. I do think that since there might be a problem with it, that spaces would probably be a better idea. Why does the series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1n$ not converge? Can someone give a simple explanation as to why the       $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1n=\frac 1 1 + \frac 12 + \frac 13 + \cdots $$   doesn't converge, on the other hand it grows very slowly?   I'd prefer an easily comprehensible explanation rather than a rigorous proof regularly found in undergraduate textbooks. Why does the field of an electric dipole drop off as $1/r^3$? Electric field of a point charge drops off inverse squarely but that of a dipole varies as $1/r^3$. Why the field drops off more quickly for a dipole? Is there any practical difference between saving at 300ppi or 72ppi? I often see statements in discussions about web displayed image quality that go something like this: "I only upload pictures at 72 dpi and 1200 pixels on the long edge, so if someone copies and prints the image it won't look as good as if it were 300 dpi."  What? Have I missed something here?  Does an image edited and saved/exported with 1200x800 pixels at 300 ppi look any different online than the same image saved/exported with 1200x800 pixels at 72 ppi? Other than the metadata regarding ppi, is there any difference in the two images at all? If so, what is the difference? If I tell my printer to print the images at 4R (4X6 inches) will there be any difference at all in how the printer creates a print from the 1200x800 @ 300 dpi image versus the 1200x800 @ 72 dpi image? I wish to open a pdf in photoshop , remove some content and then resave it.  When i do this the new pdf has trimmed margins. What is the best approach to keep the margins the save as the original file. I appreciate indesign or other software would be a better for this job I was surprised to only recently notice that      An object of any density can be large enough to fall within its own   Schwarzschild radius.   Of course! It turns out that supermassive black holes at galactic centers can have an average density of less than water's.  Somehow I always operated under the assumption that black holes of any size had to be superdense objects by everyday standards.  Compare the Earth to collapsing into a mere 9mm marble retaining the same mass, in order for the escape velocity at the surface to finally reach that of light.  Or Mt. Everest packed into one nanometer.  Reading on about this , it increases proportionally with total mass.  Assuming matter is accumulated at a steady density into a spherical volume, the volume's radius will only "grow" at a cube root of the total volume and be quickly outpaced by its own gravitational radius.  Question: For an object the , what would have to be its diameter for it to qualify as a black hole (from an external point of view)?  Would this not imply by definition that:   The Earth, Solar system and Milky Way are conceivably inside this black hole? Black holes can be nested/be contained within larger ones? Whether something is a black hole or not is actually a matter of perspective/where the observer is, inside or outside? What is the difference between \emph{...} and {\em ...}?  When to use each of them? Is there a term for words that when reversed, form other words? I'm aware of what a palindrome is. What do you call words that, when reversed, form other words, such as ton (not) and part (trap)? I'm looking for the noun form of "person with intermediate skill". For example, in the context of a particular activity, "person with no skill" might be designated a novice, and "person with much skill" might be designated an expert. However I know of no such word in between these two extremes.   My only thought is amateur, which has a distinct meaning from describing level of skill, although skill level can often be inferred. I'm looking for a better solution.  EDIT: due to the attention this question has received, I'll try to offer some clarification in order to reduce repeat questions.   "Journeyman" would certainly not work. I am a software developer by profession. However the word I'm looking for should hopefully be profession-agnostic. I am trying to designate the skill level of the person that some learning material might be appropriate for. The word that I'm looking for follows the preposition "for".   For Beginners  For [word for intermediate-skilled person] For Experts  Sorry, but even after all the great answers, I'm still learning towards "amateur" even though it is technically incorrect. Also, the word should not be so esoteric that only people with English degrees know what it means. Keep the ideas coming! Configure long table caption