Clara the Fighter finds herself facing a huge undead, the Frost Giant Skeleton. She attacks twice with her scimitar, and again with her light hammer! The undead reels back as it takes bludgeoning damage, which it is vulnerable to! On her next turn, can Clara make the Attack Action using her light hammer instead of her scimitar without switching hands?  Here's the breakdown (assuming all attacks hit): Turn 1 Action: Attack (scimitar, right hand) = 2 x (1d6 + Str) slashing Bonus: Off-hand attack (light hammer, left hand) = 1d4 bludgeoning, x2 because of vunlerability Turn 2 Action: Attack (light hammer, left hand) = 2 x (1d4 + Str) bludgeoning, x2 because of vulnerability Bonus: Off-hand attack (scimitar, right hand) = 1d6 slashing Is the above allowed?
The PHB on p. 195 (or the ) says:     When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.   The rules do not make a distinction between "main-hand" and "off-hand" weapons.  My character dual wields a shortsword with her right hand and a dagger with her left hand.  Could my character attack with her left hand dagger first, doing 1d4 + STR/DEX mod damage, then attack with her right hand shortsword, doing 1d6 damage?  Does it matter which weapon I attack with first when two-weapon fighting?
What is the music on S3E16 when Todoroki was fighting group of ninjas? How do I convert materials from Blender Internal to Cycles? I know this may be a tough or confusing question, but I have numerous existing materials I created and reuse for a project, which were all prepared for Blender Internal.  Now, I want to start the transition to Cycles, but I've hit a roadblock. How can I transition my materials without completely starting over? Or should I just forget it and start with fresh materials? Why am I still getting a password prompt with ssh with public key authentication? I'm working from the URL I found here:    My ssh client is Ubuntu 64 bit 11.10 desktop and my server is Centos 6.2 64 bit. I have followed the directions. I still get a password prompt on ssh.  I'm not sure what to do next. Birthday problem: why is this solution wrong? This question is about the birthday problem: the probability that in a group of n people, at least two of them have the same birthday ().  An easy way to calculate the probability is to calculate first the probability that no two people have the same birthday.  Let's say that I want to calculate the probability that in a group of 20 people, NO two people have the same birthday.  So, for 20 people with different birthdays, I can choose the first birthday in 365 ways, the second in 364 ways and so on, while for 20 people who can have the same birthday, I can choose the first birthday in 365 ways, the second also in 365 ways, and so on. At the end:  $p={365 \cdot 364 \cdot 363 \cdot ... \cdot 346 \over 365 \cdot 365 \cdot 365 \cdot ... \cdot 365}\approx 0.59$  This is the right method and I understand it. I don't understand why the following method is wrong:  The probability that in a group of 20 people NO two people have the same birthday is the ratio between the combination without repetition of 20 birthdays and the combination with repetition of 20 birthdays:  $$p={C_{365,20} \over C'_{365,20}}={\binom{365}{20} \over \left(\binom{365}{20}\right)}={\binom{365}{20} \over \binom{365+20-1}{20}}=\frac{{{365!}\over {20!\cdot(365-20)!}}}{{(365+20-1)!}\over{20!\cdot{(365-1)!}}}\approx 0.35$$  I understand the mistake is in the denominator (as the numerator is the same of the other method, after simplifying that 20!), but why? Isn't it right to calculate the k-combination with repetition of 20 birthdays?  Thanks for helping! Are Newton's "laws" of motion laws or definitions of force and mass? If you consider  as laws, then there must be independent definitions of  and  but I don't think there's such definitions.  If you consider them as definitions, then why are they still called laws? Why is my multimeter stopping device from booting when measuring current? I am using a BK Precision 2709B multimeter and attempting to measure the current of a device that runs off of a ~3.7V battery. The device boots up, initializes and then goes into its lower power state. If I use the 10A setting, my device boots up just fine but I need to measure uA or mA. When I attempt to use the mA setting, the device attempts to boot and then continuously reboots. Its not able to finish its initialization process before it cuts off. The current reading on the meter is ~30mA before the device cuts off and attempts to boot up again. The meter says 400mA max, so it doesn't seem like it is over the maximum allowed current for the mA setting. Is there anything I can do to get past the initialization so I can measure the lower power state? $\sin(n)$ subsequence limits set We were given a challenge by our calculus professor and I've been stuck on it for a while now.   Show that the set of subsequence limits of $A_n=\sin(n)$ is $[-1, 1]$ (another way to phrase this would be: $\forall r\in [-1,1]$ there exists a subsequence of $A_n=\sin(n)$ that converges to $r$).  What would be a good way to start? Does Earth really have two high-tide bulges on opposite sides? The bit that makes sense – tidal forces My physics teacher explained that most tidal effect is caused by the Moon rotating around the Earth, and some also by the Sun. They said that in the Earth and Moon system, the bodies are in freefall about each other. But that points on the surface of Earth, not being at Earth's centre of gravity, experience a slightly different pulls towards the Moon. The pull is a little greater if they are on the Moon's side, and slightly lesser if they are on the side away from the Moon. Once freefall is removed, on the Moon side this feels like a pull towards the Moon and on the the opposite side it feels like a repulsion from the Moon. This makes sense to me, and is backed up by other questions and answers here, like  and also  Phys.SE question. The bit that doesn't make sense – tidal bulges They also said that there are &quot;tidal bulges&quot; on opposite sides of the Earth caused by these forces. The bulges stay still relative to the Moon and Earth rotating through the bulges explains why we get two tides a day. They drew a picture like this one…  An image search for  finds hundreds of similar examples, and  from a scientist on Twitter. …But, if there is a tidal bulge on both sides of Earth, like a big wave with two peaks going round and around, how can an island, like Great Britain where I live, simultaneously have a high tide on one side and a low tide on the other? For example:   on the West coast  on the East  Two ports with tides 6 hours, or 180º apart. It's high tide at one while low tide at the other. But they are only  by road. Great Britain is much smaller than Earth. It's probably not even as big as the letter &quot;A&quot; in the word &quot;TIDAL&quot; in that picture.  To prove this isn't just Britain being a crazy anomaly, here is another example from New Zealand:     Two ports that are 180º (6 hours) apart, but separated by  through a national park. New Zealand, unlike the UK, is in fairly open ocean. I am not asking for a solution to speed it up, i simply want to know how long it should take!  I would also like a way to speed it up but not something technical, im new to Blender! Inclusion of Fields whose order is a prime power Blue was correct, I need to fix my understanding of this:     Finite fields have cardinality of a prime order because they have a prime subfield that has finite characteristic.    I do not completely understand why finite field of each characteristic is unique. Perhaps we look at a polynomial and express the finite field as a splitting field? And we use uniqueness of splitting fields?  Then, why is it that  $\mathbb F_{p^m} \subseteq \mathbb F_{p^n}$ if and only if $m$ divides $n$? I have already proved Triangle Inequality $\lVert v+w\rVert \le \lVert v \rVert+\lVert w \rVert$ in vector space $\mathbb{R}^n$. However, I'm having difficulties proving the Reverse Triangle Inequality in the vector space.  I have started with   $$\lVert v \rVert^2=v \cdot v-w\cdot w+w\cdot w \le \lVert v-w \rVert+\lVert w \rVert^2$$ $$\lVert w \rVert^2=w \cdot w-v\cdot v+v\cdot v \le \lVert w-v \rVert+\lVert v \rVert^2$$  based on the Triangle Inequality but I don't know if it is correct. If this is right, I think I can go on with proving it the same way I would the normal Reverse Triangle Inequality. Single word describing something "outside of oneself" Comma after a coordinating conjunction preceding a parenthetical at the start of the sentence Let $f$ be a real-valued function continuous on $[a,b]$ and differentiable on $(a,b)$. Suppose that $\lim_{x\rightarrow a}f'(x)$ exists. Then, prove that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ and $f'(a)=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}f'(x)$.    It seems like an easy example, but a little bit tricky. I'm not sure which theorems should be used in here.    ==============================================================  Using @David Mitra's advice and @Pete L. Clark's notes I tried to solve this proof. I want to know my proof is correct or not.  By MVT, for $h&gt;0$ and $c_h \in (a,a+h)$ $$\frac{f(a+h)-f(a)}{h}=f'(c_h)$$ and $\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}c_h=a$.    Then $$\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}\frac{f(a+h)-f(a)}{h}=\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}f'(c_h)=\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}f'(a)$$   But that's enough? I think I should show something more, but don't know what it is. decode a quoted printable message in php I have the string which that encoded in .  How do I decode this in php?  Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Vestibulum felis = pede, vestibulum et, ullamcorper in, ultrices eget, metus. Suspendisse in n= ulla. Sed justo. Donec dapibus auctor neque. Pellentesque faucibus ante nec=  metus. Vivamus feugiat, velit rhoncus semper suscipit, libero augue venena= tis leo, nec ornare nulla elit eget diam. Nullam sollicitudin. Why does Leia's accent change during A New Hope? Does any uncountable set contain two disjoint uncountable sets? Is it true that for any uncountable $S$, there exits two uncountable subsets $S_1,S_2 \subseteq S$ with $S_1 \cap S_2 = \emptyset$?   I can find no counter example, but no proof either.  I am aware of similar questions regarding the partition of uncountable subsets of the real line, and there are many examples of disjoints uncountable subsets of $\mathbb{R}$, say $R_1,R_2$.   It is not clear to me however whether this extends to any uncountable set. For uncountable sets $S$ with $S \succeq_{card} \mathbb{R}$, there exists an injection $f : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow S$ and choosing $S_1,S_2$ with $S_i = \{s\in S~|~ s = f(r_i) $ for some $ r_i \in R_i\}$, works.   But from what I understood of the continuum hypothesis, there might exist an uncountable sets $H$ with $\mathbb{R} \succeq_{card} H$. So using the above argument, one cannot infer that the property holds for every uncountable sets from observing that it holds for $\mathbb{R}$. Is this right? Are there other ways to prove or disprove the assertion? Did Michael Corleone ever get revenge against those who killed his wife? Did Michael Corleone ever get revenge against those who killed his wife?   I just watched the 3 Godfather movies again and I was not able to figure out who made the attempt on his life and in the process killing his wife with the car bomb Sicily in the first movie. I know it was one of his body guards that planted the bomb, but I could not get who was actually behind it. I am guessing it was probably the Barzini crime family for the killing of Virgil Sollozzo, but I am just making an assumption there and if in fact it was the Barzini crime family then obviously he did get his revenge. I was hoping someone could back this assumption up, or not.  So did Michael Corleone ever get revenge against those who killed his wife? Without using sudo, preferably? (Re?)Install Ubuntu on a Dell laptop that had Ubuntu preinstalled I have Dell Laptop that is 15 5567 7th Generation. So it was maybe pre-installed as Dell says and I can see in the product information that this laptop is Ubuntu built in and based not Windows.  So I want to get my Ubuntu OS again. How can I do that?