What would be the right thing to use if I want the base of a transistor to be high for 12 hours and low for 12 hours?  I ask because I would like to make a circuit that regulates temperature in a room. To do this I am using a ntc thermistor and a ptc thermistor that I have set to trigger a fan or a heater depending on the temperature of the room, but my question is not about the thermistors. I want the room to be hotter for 12 hours and cooler for 12 hours a day and I don't know what to use to switch between two temperature control circuits.  I am building this for a garden. I want the plants to have a "daytime" and a "nighttime" (quotes because the plants are indoors and receive their light from lights that this circuit will help control).  I am pretty sure I can do this with a microcontroller like an arduino, but I am curious if there is another way to do this without a microcontroller. I was thinking of a 555 timer, but I don't think resistors and capacitors exist that are big enough.  Thank you for any response you might provide.
So, i want to make a timer that will turn on/off a circuit. I want to turn on the connected device at 08:00 and stop it at 20:00, so the interval is 12 hours. Correct me if i'm wrong but i can't use IC 555(or another IC), i'll need some huge resistors/capacitors. Is there another way to build that other than using a microcontroller?
First we are told that the Galactic Empire/Federation/Powers-that-be have kept the Earth locked up for being too warlike, but now their help is needed against invaders from another galaxy.  When the aliens land the first thing they meet is a talking bunny.      at the end when humans have accepted to join the fight the alien offers to send ships to transport them. The human leader tells that there is no need...  and the Earth accelerates away.   I must have read this sometime in the mid eighties, so no later than 84 or 85, but the story may be from the sixties or before. What license does Ubuntu fall into (GPL, MIT, a mix)? Would it be legal to modify it and redistribute my modified version? I've only found a recursive algorithm of the extended Euclidean algorithm. I'd like to know how to use it by hand. Any idea? Incorrect indentation for tag listing questions loaded via AJAX I am seeing a weird indentation for questions loaded via AJAX (i.e., by clicking the n question(s) with new activity link). The following screenshot was taken before I clicked the link:  And this is after the new question was loaded:  A browser refresh resolves the problem (as can be expected). It was tested with Chrome 88 and Firefox 85 on  (Catalina). how many semantically different boolean functions are there for n boolean variables? In short, this is an assignment question for a course I am taking - the exact wording is this:  "Given n Boolean variables, how many 'semantically' different Boolean functions can you construct?"  Now, I had a crack at this myself - and got pretty stuck. The question doesnt state how many boolean operators there are (and, or, xor, nand, nor, iff, implies, not) nor does it state whether brackets should be used, i.e. a ^ (b v c) is different from (a ^ b) v c.  So, my question for you is - is this question possible given the limited information available?   Is it going to be something like ${n^x}$ where x is the number of boolean operators.  Any direction here would be greatly appreciated. error: file '/grub/i386-pc/normal.mod' not found. grub rescue&gt;   What can I do? I just sit and stare at it.   I found my old netbook (Dell Inspiron 1010) which I have not used for about four years. I replaced Windows XP with Ubuntu 12.10. I used my bootable USB drive. I installed and rebooted. I got the message that normal.mod is not found.   What should I do? Type exit, reboot, or quit? Should I re-install? As mentioned in the , Ubuntu 18.04 LTS will not have a 32 bit Desktop Image Installer. But in the  it has  32bit Desktop Images.  This is little off topic, but I'm confused. How can I create launchers on my desktop? Why is usable RAM less than total RAM? My girlfriend bought a laptop last week. It's a core 2 duo with 4 GB  We installed vista 64bit, and one of the first things we did was right click on "My computer" to see gthe properties. Immediately we noticed something strange about her RAM, the line said: Installed memory (RAM): 4,00 GB (3,68 GB usable)  I told her not to worry, thinking it must be something about the laptop hardware (considering her vista installation came from the same DVD as mine, and I never noticed anything like that on my 4 GB desktop). One hour ago, it got worse. We looked at Properties again, and it now says: Installed memory (RAM): 4,00 GB (2,98 GB usable)  What does that mean? Are those 1,02 GB missing or being used by the system?  EDIT: There is a possibility that the sytem information is wrong. I just noticed that it reports an intel T6500 processor, when it's actually a T6400.  How can I find out how much RAM is really available to the system?  EDIT2: Checking the resource monitors, it says 1003 MB are reserved for the hardware. Is that good or bad? Thanks Remove all content using pure JS How do comment @replies work? How do the comment replies (aka &quot;pinging users&quot;) work?  Who can I send an @reply to? How do I respond to a specific user when entering my comment? Will they be notified? What do people mean when they talk about &quot;pinging&quot; another user?  Related: Force JavaScript exception/error when reading an undefined object property? I spotted a  (10k-only by now) and when I went to flag it, the flag dialog told me that I'd already flagged it as VLQ:    The thing is, I'd never seen this post before. And a look at the flag history in my user profile confirms that I haven't flagged a post since yesterday:    Certainly, well before the 2015-02-04 05:36:21Z time of Mr. Miracle's post.  I was able to reproduce this on SO from the VLQ review queue: when you're presented with an answer, click on link at the right side of the page, then click flag. You get the "you have already raised this type of flag" message on either the "it is not an answer" or "it is very low quality" options, I gather depending on the original flag that pushed the post into the VLQ queue. Questions on "All Horse are the Same Color" Proof by Complete Induction I'm bugged by the following that's summarized on p. 109 of .     False theorem: All horses are the same color.      Proof by induction:      $\fbox{$P(n)$ is the statement: In every set of horses of size $n$, all $n$ horses are the same color.}$   $\fbox{Base Case or $P(1)$:}$ One horse is the same color as itself. This is true by inspection.   $\fbox{Induction Step:}$ Assume $P(k)$ for some $k \geq 1$.   $\fbox{Proof of $P(k + 1) :$}$   Since $\{H_1, H_2, ... , H_n\}$ is a set of $n$ horses, the induction hypothesis applies to this set. Thus, all the horses in this set are the same color.   Since $\{H_2, H_3, ... , H_{n+1}\}$ is also a set of $n$ horses, the induction step likewise holds for this set. Thus, all the horses in this set are the same color too.         Therefore, all $n +1$ horses in $\{H_1, H_2, H_3, ... , H_n , H_{n+1}\}$ are the same color. QED.   The issue the instructor was trying to point out is clearly valid. For the case $n = 1$, there is only ${H_1}$. So this case says nothing about possible overlapping elements of each set of $(n + 1)$, for instance $H_2$ in the above proof.    But it was proposed in the class discussion that this was the only problem. Had you been able to prove $P(2)$ true, then a proof of the above format would have been fine.    My interpretation is that yes, you could prove all horses are the same color, if you can prove that any set of two horses will be the same color. But this format would not work.  Why not? The problem I see is that the above proof is for the existence of at least one particular pair of sets of horses of sizes $n$ and $n + 1$, such that in each set, all horses are the same color.  Particularly when the set of size $n$ is a subset of the set of size $n + 1$.  In order to prove the induction step, don't you need to prove that sets of sizes $n$ and $n + 1$, do not necessarily contain the same, overlapping elements?  You could prove that any horse can be added to a set of 2 horses.  Take the last two, and they must be the same color, and so on.  Wwhatever color the first two happen to be, all other horses must thus be the same color.    Am I misinterpreting the example, or am I making a logical error? Thanks in advance. Imagine you're teaching a first course on quantum mechanics in which your students are well-versed in classical mechanics, but have never seen any quantum before.  How would you motivate the subject and convince your students that in fact classical mechanics cannot explain the real world and that quantum mechanics, given your knowledge of classical mechanics, is the most obvious alternative to try?  If you sit down and think about it, the idea that the state of a system, instead of being specified by the finitely many particles' position and momentum, is now described by an element of some abstract (rigged) Hilbert space and that the observables correspond to self-adjoint operators on the space of states is not at all obvious.  Why should this be the case, or at least, why might we expect this to be the case?   Then there is the issue of measurement which is even more difficult to motivate.  In the usual formulation of quantum mechanics, we assume that, given a state $|\psi \rangle$ and an observable $A$, the probability of measuring a value between $a$ and $a+da$ is given by $|\langle a|\psi \rangle |^2da$ (and furthermore, if $a$ is not an eigenvalue of $A$, then the probability of measuring a value in this interval is $0$).  How would you convince your students that this had to be the case?  I have thought about this question of motivation for a couple of years now, and so far, the only answers I've come up with are incomplete, not entirely satisfactory, and seem to be much more non-trivial than I feel they should be.  So, what do you guys think?  Can you motivate the usual formulation of quantum mechanics using only classical mechanics and minimal appeal to experimental results?  Note that, at some point, you will have to make reference to experiment.  After all, this is the reason why we needed to develop quantum mechanics.  In principle, we could just say "The Born Rule is true because its experimentally verified.", but I find this particularly unsatisfying.  I think we can do better.  Thus, I would ask that when you do invoke the results of an experiment, you do so to only justify fundamental truths, by which I mean something that can not itself just be explained in terms of more theory.  You might say that my conjecture is that the Born Rule is not a fundamental truth in this sense, but can instead be explained by more fundamental theory, which itself is justified via experiment.  Edit:  To clarify, I will try to make use of a much simpler example.  In an ideal gas, if you fix the volume, then the temperature is proportional to pressure.  So we may ask "Why?".  You could say "Well, because experiment.", or alternatively you could say "It is a trivial corollary of the ideal gas law.".  If you choose the latter, you can then ask why that is true.  Once again, you can just say "Because experiment." or you could try to prove it using more fundamental physical truths (using the kinetic theory of gases, for example).  The objective, then, is to come up with the most fundamental physical truths, prove everything else we know in terms of those, and then verify the fundamental physical truths via experiment.  And in this particular case, the objective is to do this with quantum mechanics. I'm working on a Ubuntu system, and my client has completely forgotten his administrative password. He doesn't even remember entering one; however it is there.  I've tried the suggestions on the website, and I have been unsuccessful in deleting the password so that I can download applets required for running some files. Is there a solution? How much did the Trade Federation know about their 'lord' at time of blockade? Limit of $L^p$ norm when $p\to0$ Let ($\Omega$, $\cal{F}$, $\mu$) be a probability space and $f\in L^1(\Omega)$. Prove that  $$\displaystyle\lim_{p\to 0} \left[ \int_{\Omega}|f|^pd\mu \right]^{\frac{1}{p}}=\exp \left[ \int_{\Omega}\log|f| d\mu  \right],$$  where $\exp[-\infty]=0$. To simplify the problem, we may assume $\log|f|\in L^1(\Omega).$ Paperback novel about a man who kills a birdlike alien on his balcony with a watering can Anime: boy transforms into white+orange being after a terrorist attack