I was looking for the definition of "brimming" and I found it "To be abundantly filled or supplied"  And those examples on it A monument brimming with tourists. Workers brimming with pride. according to thefreedictionary.com My question: Is "Brim + ing" a  verb or a noun?
How can I distinguish between words which have the -ing in a sentence that are nouns, verbs, or adjectives?    For example sometimes -ing come with word to give us a noun, and sometimes a verb or an adjective.       That interesting snake.   That crawling snake.   That barking dog keeps everyone awake.     Is there any rule to determine whether a word with -ing is a noun, verb, or adjective?
Python string.join(list) on object array rather than string array In Python, I can do:  &gt;&gt;&gt; list = ['a', 'b', 'c'] &gt;&gt;&gt; ', '.join(list) 'a, b, c'   Is there any easy way to do the same when I have a list of objects?  &gt;&gt;&gt; class Obj: ...     def __str__(self): ...         return 'name' ... &gt;&gt;&gt; list = [Obj(), Obj(), Obj()] &gt;&gt;&gt; ', '.join(list) Traceback (most recent call last):   File "&lt;stdin&gt;", line 1, in &lt;module&gt; TypeError: sequence item 0: expected string, instance found   Or do I have to resort to a for loop? Method to create a live USB disk (with persistence) which actually works? I've tried so many combinations - all I want is a fast Ubuntu Live USB disk with persistence that works. What I've tried so far:   Using unetbootin on my Mac, choosing some "Space used to preserve files across reboots (Ubuntu only)".   Result: Doesn't boot at all.  Using unetbootin on my Mac, choosing no such space.  Result: Boots fine and very fast (doesn't even show the annoying dialog "Try ubuntu/install ubuntu" at startup!), but has no persistence. (So I have to choose my keyboard layout, install programs I need, etc. every time)  Using Startup Disk Creator from my Ubuntu 11.04 installation.  Result: I cannot choose "reserved extra space" at all. It's greyed out. I know I know, there was bug , and many people say that the workaround from  works for them. But it doesn't work with Ubuntu 11.04 anymore (see also ).  Using Startup Disk Creator from my Kubuntu 10.10 installation, gnome version (usb-creator-gtk).   Result: I can select the "reserved extra space" option, but installation doesn't work (fails when installing the bootloader).  Using Startup Disk Creator from my Kubuntu 10.10 installation, kde version (usb-creator-kde).   Result: Actually works: Reserved space can be selected, installation works. But after booting, I get the screen "Try ubuntu/install ubuntu". Clicking on "Try ubuntu" takes me to the desktop - but only after waiting 5 minutes (every time!). It also doesn't seem to keep my keyboard settings.    I know, that instead of creating a startup disk, I could install a full ubuntu system on the USB stick. But as far as I know, this isn't very good, because /tmp and similar directories will then also be on the USB disk, which is a) slow, and b) not very good for the USB disk due to frequent overwriting.  I'm frustrated. So has anybody managed to create a working Ubuntu 11.04 Live USB disk with persistence? Evaluating $\lim_{n \to \infty} (1 + 1/n)^{n}$ I was recently thinking about how I could evaluate the famous limit of 'e' as I haven't ever seen a proof. I can't really find anything online so I've tried to evaluate the limit myself. And I was also thinking it would be nonsensical to use L'Hopital's rule, am I right?  So I did the following:  $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 + \frac{1}{n} \right)^{n} = \exp \left(\lim_{n \to \infty} n \cdot \ln \left(1 + \frac{1}{n} \right) \right)$$  $$=\lim_{n \to \infty} \exp \left( n \cdot \left( \frac{1}{n} - \frac{(1/n)^{2}}{2} + \cdots \right) \right)$$  $$= \lim_{n \to \infty} \exp \left( 1 - \frac{(1/n)}{2} + \cdots \right)$$  $$= e$$  I am not sure, is my logic correct or does it create circularity by taking logarithms and assuming $$f(x) = \exp \left( \ln f(x) \right)$$ ? Why isn't the eigenclass equivalent to self.class, when it looks so similar? In how many ways can $500$ indistinguishable students select books from $10$ titles if no more than $20$ copies of one particular text are selected? Assume that there are an arbitrarily large number of copies of ten diﬀerent discrete math books (which we will call titles) for cmsc250. Each student must choose one title as the course text book. Assume that the ﬁve hundred students taking the course are indistiguishable.  How many diﬀerent ways can the students choose titles, if Epp must be chosen by at most twenty students?   I understand that this is a stars and bars problem where the formula would be ${n+r-1}\choose{r-1}$, but whats throwing me off is the "at most" parameter of the problem. My answer is ${480+9-1}\choose{9-1}$ My reasoning was that we now have one less "bar", and that should be shown by lowering $r$ by 1  Am I approaching this the right way? Fixed Field of $\sigma, \tau$ Let $k$ be a field and let $K=k(x)$ be the rational function field in one variable over $k$. Let $\DeclareMathOperator{\aut}{Aut}\sigma, \tau \in \aut(K)$ s.t. $$\sigma\left(\frac {f(x)}{ g(x)}\right)=\frac {f(1/x)}{g(1/x)}\qquad \&amp;\qquad \tau\left(\frac {f(x)}{ g(x)}\right)=\frac {f(1-x)}{g(1-x)}.$$ Find the fixed field $F$ of $&lt;\sigma, \tau&gt;$. Determine $\DeclareMathOperator{\gal}{Gal}\gal(k/F)$. Find an $h \in F$ so that $F=k(h)$.   Now for the first automorphism $\sigma$, I think if I concentrate on $k[x]$ it will give me some idea. Now, if $f(x)=a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2+ \cdots + a_nx^n \in k[x]$ then if $x^n \sigma(f(x))=f(x)$ the case will be $a_i=a_{n-i}$ $\forall i=0(1)[n/2]$. So all the funtions in $K$ which will be fixed by $\sigma$ are of the form $\frac {f(x)}{ g(x)}$ where $f(x)=a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2+ \cdots + a_nx^n$ and $g(x)=b_0+b_1x+b_2x^2+ \cdots + b_nx^n$ such that $a_i=a_{n-i}$ $\forall i=0(1)[n/2]$ and $b_i=b_{n-i}$ $\forall i=0(1)[n/2]$.   Please check whether am I right or not?  And any ideas for the rest of the part? How should a GM deal with "standing orders?" Why does this work: returning C string literal from std::string function and calling c_str() Lagrangian of Schrodinger field The usual Schrodinger Lagrangian is $$ \tag 1 i(\psi^{*}\partial_{t}\psi ) + \frac{1}{2m} \psi^{*}(\nabla^2)\psi, $$ which gives the correct equations of motion, with conjugate momentum for $\psi^{*}$ vanishing. This Lagrangian density is not real but differs from a real Lagrangian density  $$ \tag 2 \frac{i}{2}(\psi^{*}\partial_{t}\psi -\psi \partial_{t}\psi^{*} ) + \frac{1}{2m} \psi^{*}(\nabla^2)\psi $$ by a total derivative.  My trouble is that these two lagrangian densities lead to different conjugate momenta and hence when setting equal time commutation relations, I am getting different results (a factor of 2 is causing the problem). I can rescale the fields but then my Hamiltonian also changes. Then applying Heisenberg equation of motion, I don't get the operator Schrodinger equation.   Is it possible to work with the real Lagrangian density and somehow get the correct commutation relations? I would have expected two Lagrangians differing by total derivative terms to give identical commutation relations (since canonical transformations preserve them). But perhaps I am making some very simple error. Unless all conjugate momenta are equivalent for two Lagrangians differing by total derivatives, how does one choose the correct one?   I guess the same thing happens for other first order systems like Dirac Lagrangian also. How do I check if an integer is even or odd? When viewing a question, when I hover over the star icon (under the voting module) the tooltip says I've made it a favorite when I haven't yet. Naive visualization of space-time curvature Is there a way to change the color of text in a question? I just asked this question: .  The first answer I got totally missed the point of the question (that answer is now deleted).    I think my question would have been clearer if I could have changed the color of a (non-code) word to red, so I could show an example of what I wanted.  Is there a way to do this? Spacing changes when using unicode-math range feature. Why? You can use the range feature of unicode-math to set the math font for a specific unicode slots or the macro accessing the glyph. I tried this with the sum sign &amp; Latin Modern, see my example:  \documentclass{scrartcl}  \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{unicode-math} % use unicode in math &amp; setup math fonts \setmathfont{Asana Math} %\setmathfont[range=\sum]{Latin Modern Math} % substitute Sum sign  \begin{document}  Notice the different sum sign $\sum$, as intended.   Notice also, the difference in spacing, not intended: \begin{equation}     \begin{bmatrix}         0           &amp; \frac{1}{2}   &amp; \frac{2}{3} \\         \frac{3}{4} &amp; 0             &amp; \frac{4}{5} \\         \frac{5}{6} &amp; \frac{6}{7}   &amp; 0     \end{bmatrix}     \begin{pmatrix}         A \\         B \\         C     \end{pmatrix} \end{equation} \end{document}   However, not only the sum sign, but also the spacing in the matrices changes. With Latin Modern commented out (as in the example):  With Latin Modern active (remove % before relevant line):  Why is that? BTW, I'm using Lualatex from TeXLive 2012. On freedom in Sartre's existentialism I am reading "Existenstialism is a humanism", the text of the famous conference by Sartre in which he explains his own version of existentialism. I think is full of logical inconsistencies, but maybe it's just because I don't understand it or I don't know enough about existentialism. Anyway, my question is about a specific passage. After having "demonstrated" that there is no way one can derive an ethics outside of Man (God does not exist and reason is insufficient), he asks himself according to what principle a person should behave and he says:     "For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can   have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen   that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can   will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all   values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply   means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate   significance, the quest of freedom itself as such."   So it seems Sartre says that when deciding a course of action, people will always choose "freedom," (and also, elsewhere, that "freedom" is always a good thing). That is for him the only principle, the only moral that governs or should (because we can do wrong judgments about what is freedom) govern our action.  My questions are:  1) do I understand correctly Sartre's thinking?  2) He says: a) freedom is absolute; b) the values that man chooses are also absolute because no God or reason can tell him what to do, c) therefore man will choose freedom. Is there any logic in this statement? If I replace freedom with X where X is "pleasure" or "justice" or "pain" or "zero temperature", wouldn't I "demonstrate" by this logic that man will choose X?  3) assuming what I said makes any sense, how can existentialism ever find a rule of moral conduct? and if it does, what is it and how can be demonstrated? and if it cannot, why is or has been important at all as a philosophy?  Thanks! Is Site Traffic Data Gone for Good After Fixing Previous Bug? There was a previous bug affecting site traffic statistics showing -zero- for months (). This has been fixed in that it is now graphing the data.  It appears that previous data may be lost? The graphs below are from . I don't have access to any other sites' graphs to see if they are showing similar results. Render has strange artifacts I've got a problem with my rendering! I'm trying to render some objects:    But, this is how it renders:    Can somebody help me out? Improve the user self-deletion process The current process for self-deletion of a user account has several problematic aspects, both in the process itself and in the end result. Some of these issues are:   The process requires manual intervention of a mod or SE employee, leading to delays and sometimes mistakes. It is more complicated than it has to be, which can lead to the impression that SE is imposing some rather arbitrary-looking restrictions and steps one has to take. This can give the impression that the user isn't really in control of his private data at SE. It is irreversible once the account is deleted, although an account can be partially reconstructed with a lot of manual effort from an SE developer. There is no real protection against mod/SE employee errors, if an account is deleted in error, there is no easy way to undo the damage. Because it is manual, it consumes the time of SE employees that have to deal with it  (unless  is used), removing useful voting information and annoying users that lose reputation that way.   I'm proposing an alternative way of handling self-deletion that would be automated, and also reversible to some extent, while still being pretty much a hard-delete (and not a soft-delete that would be problematic with respect to user privacy). The process would work roughly like this:   The user clicks a "delete profile" button in his profile. There should be a way to indicate if you want to delete all profiles on all SE sites, only on this site and a way to select multiple sites from a list where the profile should be deleted. It is verified that the user has true access to the account in some way (confirmation mail?) and not just someone that found the unlocked computer of the user. A countdown until deletion is started (I'd go with 48h, but that could be different). The timer shouldn't be too long, but long enough to correct mistakes and leave users a bit of time to reconsider. Alternative options would be to enable users to override the countdown if they really want to nuke their account immediately. Another option would be to soft-delete the account immediately, and make the countdown only for hard-deletion of the user data. Upon deletion, the posts of the user and his votes are transferred to a newly created blank account, the original account itself is hard-deleted with all the remaining data it contains. The dummy account that holds the user's data should be flagged in some way as deleted, so that the profile links will be disabled, the profile won't be accessible and it won't appear in any user lists.  The user receives a private code that can be used to claim ownership of the account. Other ways are not possible as all private information is removed about the account. This allows for an automatic way of reclaiming most of the important parts of a deleted account. The ability to restore a deleted account might have to be somewhat restricted to avoid misusing it to get rid of the account history. It is more meant as an additional safeguard so that account reconstruction is more easily possible in rare cases. Such additional safeguards might be necessary as the deletion itself would be automatic and without oversight from SE or moderators.   I personally think that the information which posts and votes were connected to a (now anonymized) account is not sensitive enough that it would have to be removed on account deletion. My idea is that this would be close enough to a hard-delete that it satisfies any privacy concerns, but still allow reassociation of posts with a recovered account. The partial reversibility would alleviate concerns about removing the manual oversight by mods and SE employees over the account deletion process. Many times I have read statements like, "the age of the universe is 14 billion years" . For example this wikipedia page .   Now, my question is, which observers' are these time intervals? According to whom 14 billion years? How many Shutter Clicks on a New Camera considered normal?    I purchased a quotes new Nikon D750 and checked the shutter count and it has 264 Shutter Clik count on it.    Is that suspect of a returned purchase or used camera?