How would I prevent from spattering oil everywhere when pan frying? I was shallow-frying breaded chicken breasts for a General Tso's and got boiling hot oil EVERYWHERE in my kitchen, even burning myself multiple times. I would definitely prefer avoiding this in the future.
I often cook fries in a skillet. I put about 1/4 cup vegetable oil into a large skillet and heat on high, then I toss in some frozen fries.   As soon as I toss them in there is an explosion of grease that makes a huge mess. After it simmers down though, I can cook the fries without spilling anymore grease.  Is there anyway to avoid the initial uproar?
Clearing Flag Bits By Writing 1 I just synced my Mountain Lion Mail app with my Exchange work email account in order to have it locally on my machine (rather than continuously going through the web interface). However, now Mail fetches all the mails since the very beginning (which are a couple of years).  Is there a way (like on iOS devices) to tell Mail to only sync the last month or something configurable amount based on message count, download size or other similar restriction to prevent all messages from being stored locally? I'm looking to do a third-party assessment of the false-positive rate of a video classification algorithm. Since I have a lot of video I'm trying to do a power analysis to figure out exactly how much video I need to look through so that it is representative of all the video data at a given confidence interval.  The algorithm flags video sequences that have at least one cat in it, and I'm looking to evaluate the frequency of false positives on a new unlabeled test set. So I have tagged all the video that my algorithm has identified a cat in and now want to sample the tagged video sections and look through them manually to validate my model since looking through all of it would take too long! Note, I'm not looking to refine the model at this point, just assess it.  My null hypothesis is that the FP rate of the sample of video I watch is equal to the FP rate of all the video.   I think I can use this formula to determine the number of video sequences to view:    Here is my question: am I thinking through this formulation correctly? Since my model has a CV false positive rate of ~0.96, I figure I can use that as a reference. Can I use that for the null hypothesis proportion, p0? Or will that be p, the true proportion?    I've been using this online calculator:   I ask because when setting the parameters I have, I'm getting very small sample sizes, like less than 10 sequences to view. That can't be right. I'm trying to delete a folder in Windows 7 and get a perplexing error message: "Could not find this item:  This is no longer located in G:\Graphics.  Verify the item's location and try again.  I can see the folder -- I can find it.  I just can't delete it.    I also get a second error message (sometimes) when I click on the folder: G:\Graphics 2009-11-17 refers to a location that is unavailable...this information might have been moved to a different location.    I'm using Windows 7; this folder is on an external hard drive.  I've emptied the folder (there were items in it); I've scanned that external hard drive for errors.  Trying to rename the folder yields the same enigmatic error message.    Is there a way to delete this folder? The future of meta.stackoverflow and meta.stackexchange Historically this site, , has been the place to ask questions about not just Stack Overflow, but the functioning of the entire Stack Exchange (2.0) network, including Area 51 and stackexchange.com and careers.  (Yes, there was a , but that dealt with the old legacy Stack Exchange 1.0 sites. It was deprecated a while ago, and currently redirects here.)  Now that we've gotten many, many months under our belt from the SE 1.0 days, I think it's time that we gave Stack Overflow its own, true per-site meta, and moved the higher level network meta discussions to meta.stackexchange.com.  Over time, it's begun to bug me more and more that requests for Stack Overflow, the site, kind of get buried here on meta.stackoverflow under the avalanche of network issues. Retag requests, synonym requests, things truly specific to Stack Overflow, the site, not the network. This is unfair to our vastly largest and flagship Q&amp;A site, and it's unfair to the Stack Overflow users to mix their requests in with network level concerns.  It's also odd that Stack Overflow is the only network site without a proper, dedicated per-site meta, where its meta has its own reputation system not tied to the parent site in any way.  This is mostly a quirk of history more than anything else, and I believe it is now an appropriate time to split into two sites:   , a proper per-site meta for Stack Overflow with integrated rep , a global network meta with its own reputation system   Yes, this will be painful. But I believe it is a good, necessary, and healthy step both for the future of the network and the future of Stack Overflow.  Some things to discuss:   which questions should be migrated from here to meta.so? Obviously site-specific things like the retag-requests, and perhaps questions with the  tag. Anything that is 100% wholly specific to Stack Overflow and not generalizable to the rest of the network should be moved over. This may be a pretty small, narrow list of questions, and that's OK. Should we do some meta spring cleaning in our transition? Which questions / tags should be blown away as no longer relevant, referring to ancient versions of Stack Overflow or issues that have long since ceased to exist and aren't instructive for any future visitors? Your meta reps will generally be unaffected, except insofar as we delete for spring cleaning, or move site-specific things to meta.so. We still plan to have a distinct reputation system for the new meta.se site, just like here.   I do not have a timeline for this change, that is up to Jarrod and David to decide. It may be months away. However, we feel pretty strongly that this is something that we need to do to clean things up and pave the way for the future -- so I expect it will happen in the next few months, giving us lots of time to decide how we want to do it, per the above.  Update  . How to write zero in the unary numeral system In the decimal system: $...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...$ In the binary system: $...-11, -10, -1, 0, 1, 10, 11...$ In the unary system: $-111, -11, -1, \text{ ??? }, 1, 11, 111...$   I was only able to find a related question but none with an answer so far: I would like to make cross references to own defined counter on environments. So far I have tried the following,   \documentclass{book} \newcounter{entryc}[subsection] \newcommand{\thetheorem}{\thesubsection.\arabic{entryc}} \newenvironment{qd}[1]{\refstepcounter{entryc}\noindent\textbf{Quasi Definition \thetheorem.}\begin{itshape}} {\end{itshape}} % \begin{document}  \chapter{First chapter} This is the first chapter.  \section{First section} This is the first section.  \subsection{First subsection} This is the first subsection.  \begin{qd}{}\label{qd:emp} This is my environment. \end{qd}  \noindent In quasi definition \ref{qd:emp} it \dots  \end{document}   What happens is that     But I would prefer "...In quasi definition 1.1.1.1". Do anyone have some suggestions of how solve this? and How to avoid the          \noindent  thing before the continuation of the text?   Additional information: if possible I would try to not use ntheorem. While the etiquette of dealing with duplicate answers , there hasn't been a great way to deal with these, "Uh, yeah, I said this, too" types of behavior than the almighty downvote.   It would be nice to have a "Duplicate Answer" option on the flag menu. Five flags auto-deletes the answer, as with any other flag. In order to prevent abuse, the flagged answer would have to have the last owner edit (including original post) be younger than the original answer's original posting by at least 2 minutes.  Also, this ability should be a 5,000+ rep privilege, since we currently have no fanfare of rep from 3,001 to 9,999, and a power like this has a bit more umph than closing a question.  Thoughts? Can we have a high-speed low-drag close vote review queue? For an ecology project, my lab group added vinegar to 4 tanks containing equal volumes of pond water, 1 control with no elodea (an aquatic plant) and 3 treatments with the same amount of elodea in each. The purpose of adding the vinegar was to reduce the pH. The hypothesis was that the tanks with elodea would go back to their normal pH quicker. This was indeed the case. We measured the pH of each tank daily for about two weeks. All the tanks eventually returned to their natural pH, but the length of time that this took was much shorter for the tanks with elodea.  When we told our professor about our experimental design, he said that there exists no statistical test that can be performed on the data to compare the control to the treatment. That because there was no replicate for the control (we only used one control tank) we cannot calculate variance and so we can't compare the sample means of the control and the treatment. So my question is, is this true? I definitely understand what he means. For example, if you took the height of one man and one woman, you can't draw conclusions about their respective populations. But we did 3 treatments, and the variance was small. It seems reasonable to assume that the variance would be similar in the control?  Update:  Thank you for the excellent answer. We got more water and elodea from the wetland and decided we would run the experiment again with smaller tanks but this time with 5 controls and 5 treatments. We were going to combine this with our original data but the starting pH of the tanks was different enough that it doesn't seem valid to consider the new experiment to be sampled from the same population as the original experiment.  We considered adding different amounts of elodea and trying to correlate speed of pH remediation (measured as time elapsed until pH returned to its original value) with amount of elodea, but we decided that wasn't necessary. Our objective is only to show that the elodea makes a positive difference, not to construct some kind of predictive model for exactly how the pH responds to differing amounts of elodea. It would be interesting to determine the optimal amount of elodea, but that's probably just the maximum amount that can survive. Trying to fit a regression curve to the data wouldn't be especially illuminating because of the various complicated changes that occur to the community when adding a large amount. The elodea dies, decomposes, new organisms start to dominate, and so on. Within, between or overall R-square for random effects in Stata DNS subdomain (child) NS records If we have example.com we would setup things something like this: $ORIGIN example.com. @  1D  IN  SOA ns1.example.com. hostmaster.example.com. (                   2002022401 ; serial                   3H ; refresh                   15 ; retry                   1w ; expire                   3h ; nxdomain ttl                  )           IN  NS     ns1.example.com.           IN  NS     ns2.example.com.  since in the parent zone .com. there is already NS record for the example.com. child zone and A glue record for the ns1.example.com. for what purpose do we state NS records again in the child zone? and also, do we need to state A record for the name servers in the child zone itself? Distorted Cabin & Oily Sheen: What is going on in this paragraph? I have been reading a book, and I have a question about the following excerpt:  &quot;We're here,&quot; The Tortoise in the Lake said, cutting across Dong Huong's gloomy thoughts. &quot;I can see nothing.&quot; There came a low rumble, which distorted the cabin around her, and cast an oily sheen on the walls. &quot;Watch.&quot; Outside, everything was dark. There was only the shadow of The Two Sisters in Exile, the dead ship that they'd been pulling since Longevity Station. – The Two Sisters in Exile, a fantasy novel by Aliette de Bodard  Are these changes happening in the “real” life of the novel?, or are they an illusion that exists merely in the mind of the narrator? If they are only an illusion, why does the author not say so? Has the author omitted something, or are these changes are really happening as the author says? Get full URL (including querystring) from an apex REST endpoint What's the mathematics definition of the F value in Analysis of Variance Table? Suppose I have a linear regression model Y ~ b1*x1 + b2*x2 with the sample data:          x1      x2        y 0  -0.7251 -0.6033  10.2508 1  -1.3148  3.7067  10.3054 2  -1.2818 -5.8136   7.2010 3   0.6154  3.6336  11.2807 4   1.4887 -2.8337  10.6299 5  -2.0224 -0.3931   7.4502 6   0.5419 -1.7807  10.7339 7  -1.0745 -5.0296   5.8734 8   3.2116 -0.4681  11.7184 9   1.6767 -4.6040   9.0145 10 -1.3355 -2.6874   6.5014 11  0.8296  2.6793  11.8295 12 -2.8647  4.2916   7.8414 13  1.8445 -3.3924   9.6520 14 -0.1036  2.4273  11.9766 15  1.0886 -3.5636  10.6023 16 -3.3026 -6.9837   4.9962 17  1.4050 -3.8453  10.4630 18 -0.3111 -1.4278   9.2283 19 -3.5454  2.4960   7.3720   And using the following R code to get the Analysis of Variance Table:  &gt; df &lt;- read.csv('f:/data.csv', header=T, sep=",") &gt; model_All &lt;- lm(y ~ x1 + x2, data=df) &gt; anova(model_All) Analysis of Variance Table  Response: y           Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value    Pr(&gt;F)     x1         1 44.440  44.440  58.277 6.865e-07 *** x2         1 26.640  26.640  34.934 1.711e-05 *** Residuals 17 12.964   0.763                       --- Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1   And I can calculate the F value of hypothesis test H0： b2=0 via:  &gt; model_Drop2 &lt;- lm(y ~ x1, data=df) &gt; SSR_All = sum(resid(model_All)^2) &gt; SSR_Dp2 = sum(resid(model_Drop2)^2) &gt; F_x2 = ((SSR_Dp2 - SSR_All) / 1) / (SSR_All / (20 - 3)) &gt; F_x2 [1] 34.93434   We can see that F_x2 is equal to F value of x2 in Analysis of Variance Table. However, the value F_x1 calculated as follow is not equal to F value of x1, I can't understand why:  &gt; model_Drop1 &lt;- lm(y ~ x2, data=df) &gt; SSR_Dp1 = sum(resid(model_Drop1)^2) &gt; F_x1 = ((SSR_Dp1 - SSR_All) / 1) / (SSR_All / (20 - 3)) &gt; F_x1 [1] 70.30392   So, what is the mathematics definition of the F value in table?  EDIT The result of the features reversed as commented by @Michael M:  &gt; model_All2 &lt;- lm(y ~ x2 + x1, data=df) &gt; anova(model_All2) Analysis of Variance Table  Response: y           Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value    Pr(&gt;F)     x2         1 17.468  17.468  22.907 0.0001718 *** x1         1 53.612  53.612  70.304 1.914e-07 *** Residuals 17 12.964   0.763                       --- Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 I admin a handful of cloud-based (VPS) servers for the company I work for.   The servers are minimal ubuntu installs that run bits of LAMP stacks / inbound data collection (rsync). The data is large but not personal, financial or anything like that (ie not that interesting)  Clearly on here people are forever asking about configuring  and such like.   I use a bunch of approaches to secure the servers, for example (but not restricted to)   ssh on non standard ports; no password typing, only known ssh keys from known ips for login etc https, and restricted shells (rssh) generally only from known keys/ips servers are minimal, up to date and patched regularly use things like rkhunter, cfengine, lynis denyhosts etc for monitoring   I have extensive experience of unix sys admin. I'm confident I know what I'm doing in my setups. I configure /etc files. I have never felt a compelling need to install stuff like firewalls: iptables etc.  Put aside for a moment the issues of physical security of the VPS.  Q? I can't decide whether I am being naive or the incremental protection a fw might offer is worth the effort of learning / installing and the additional complexity (packages, config files, possible support etc) on the servers.  To date (touch wood) I've never had any problems with security but I am not complacent about it either. How to use the Extended Euclidean Algorithm manually? 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? Noun for "person with intermediate skill" 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! How does one change the Attribute table view on QGIS 3? An initial answer says to use the Switch to Table view button but I can't seem to find this button. Separate labels in cases As much as I have tried, it doesn't seem possible to use separate labels when using a casesconstruction (from the amsmath package).  Ideally, I would like to be able to write something like  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} \begin{equation} f(x)=\begin{cases}   1&amp;x\geq0\label{positive}\\   0&amp;x&lt;0\label{negative} \end{cases} \end{equation} \end{document}   and later refer to both cases at different places. What would be the best way to achieve this result?