I need to simulate the warning:  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ WARNING: REMOTE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED!  @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY!   I have two Linux machines and when I do ssh from Linux1 to Linux2, ssh accepted and reports no problem.  But because some of testing, I want to simulate the - Identification Has Changed error  So what I need to edit on the remote server in order to create the problem?  what I did until now is to change the knwon_hosts on both machine but its not create the problem  I get this:   key_read: uudecode AAAAB3NzaC1y3jrzG62xyHrb3qxc9eYpg1Cp1PrRElTFfYbEHsRfTZU21S8kO5/Tq+ED8=  failed  key_read: uudecode AAAAB3NzaC1y3jrzG62xyHrb3qxc9eYpg1Cp1PrRElTFfYbEHsRfTZU21S8kO5/Tq+ED8=  failed  The authenticity of host 'sfe1 (10.106.164.111)' can't be established.  RSA key fingerprint is 84:82:2b:80:ca:3f:57:c7:8c:14:44:dd:b9:70:e5:d8.  Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?
I need to simulate the warning:  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ WARNING: REMOTE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED!  @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY!   I have two Linux machines and when I do ssh from Linux1 to Linux2, ssh accepted and reports no problem.  But because some of testing, I want to simulate the - Identification Has Changed error  So what I need to edit on the remote server in order to create the problem?  what I did until now is to change the knpwn_hosts on both machine but its not creating the problem.  I get this:   key_read: uudecode AAAAB3NzaC1y3jrzG62xyHrb3qxc9eYpg1Cp1PrRElTFfYbEHsRfTZU21S8kO5/Tq+ED8=  failed  key_read: uudecode AAAAB3NzaC1y3jrzG62xyHrb3qxc9eYpg1Cp1PrRElTFfYbEHsRfTZU21S8kO5/Tq+ED8=  failed  The authenticity of host 'ste1 (10.106.164.111)' can't be established.  RSA key fingerprint is 84:82:2b:80:ca:3f:57:c7:8c:14:44:dd:b9:70:e5:d8.  Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?
I entered the USA on a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) on 1 July 2012 and stayed until 16 Sep 2012 (78 days).  On what date in 2013 will I be able to travel to USA again under VWP? Average time alloted for manuscript review across disciplines I am asking this question because I've always had the impression that manuscripts submitted to a journal in my field (theoretical linguistics) take an insanely long time to get published, and sometimes I get the impression that this is because, most of the time, nobody other than the author cares about getting things done within a reasonable amount of time. Some examples from personal experience follow.   For the last paper I submitted before getting my PhD, I had to wait nine months from the submission date to get reviews back from the referees. Last week I got a review request from a journal I had never reviewed for previously. The review deadline is March 15 (almost four months). In early October, I submitted a manuscript to a journal that I know asks reviewers to return reviews within 6 weeks. I checked the status of the manuscript online and it still says "with editor". Earlier this year, I was about to start writing a review when my wife went into labor. By the time we came back from the hospital, I had forgotten about the review, so I missed the deadline. The editor didn't contact me to ask about the review until two months after the deadline. Late in 2013, I was asked to write a survey chapter for a handbook. The expected publication date of the handbook is summer 2016.   All of this is not me being unlucky with editors and referees. In private conversations through the years, many colleagues have confirmed that it is virtually unheard of to get reviews back within 3 months of submission; 5 or 6 months seems to be a good average, but in some cases it can take longer (see my first point above). In general, everybody seems to have accepted that the submission-to-printed-journal process is going to take a bare minimum of one year, and that's assuming that the manuscript is accepted without revisions. If revisions are required, two years is not out of the question. Also, it's not like our papers are ridiculously long. I've reviewed about 100 papers so far, and the longest one was about 50 single-space pages; 30-35 single-spaced pages is closer to average.  I remember that, when I was a postdoc, my astrophysics housemate mentioned that in his field the entire submission-to-printed-journal process took only three or four months. I really can't see a good reason why theoretical linguistics shouldn't operate on similar timeframes, other than the fact that everybody seems to have grown used to things taking way longer than they really need to. What are the wait times in other fields? How do you manage to get things done quickly? Deciding whether two metrics are topologically equivalent in the space $C^1([0,1])$ Consider the space $C^1([0,1])$ and the function $d:C([0,1])\times C([0,1]) \to \mathbb R$ defined as $d(f,g)=|f(0)-g(0)|+sup_{x \in [0,1]}|f'(x)-g'(x)|$. Decide whether the metrics $d$ and $d_{\infty}$ are topologically equivalent in $C^1([0,1])$ (where $d_{\infty}=sup_{x \in [0,1]}|f(x)-g(x)|)$  My attempt at a solution:  If two metrics are topologically equivalent, then they have the same convergent sequences. Honestly, I couldn't do anything. I am trying to define a sequence of functions $\{f_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ such that $f_n \to f$ in, for instance, $(C^1([0,1]),d)$ but $f_n \not \to f$ in $(C^1([0,1]),d_{\infty})$. Could it be this two metrics are topologically equivalent? If this is the case, how could I prove it? If not, I would appreciate any hint to find an adequate sequence of functions that works for what I am trying to prove. What is the Python equivalent of static variables inside a function? I am currently running a Dungeons and Dragons 4 campaign for a group of 9 players.  Whittling the group down to a more manageable size is not really an option since they are all family.  When we do combat it takes forever even if I have one player help me and allow them to go 2 at a time.  When we do story based adventure there are 2-3 players that do most of the talking and the others twiddle their thumbs.  I've tried encounters with many foes, encounters with only a few tough foes, dialog only encounters, social puzzle encounters, everything I can think of.  What else can I try to get this group more engaged? Why don't the White Walkers take the sea route to Westeros 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 $S=\mathcal{P}(S)$... Classify all groups with order $pq$, $p$ is not equal to $q$ I am reading the following material:  . At page 5, there is a proof classifying all groups with order $pq$(they are all primes and $p$ is not equal to $q$). I am lost in the last two sentence, which claims the semidirect product are all isomorphic. Could someone help me to understand it? Thanks! sqlite database default time value 'now' Can anybody tell me when Application_End is triggered in a lifecycle of an application? When all sessions are ended, will Application_End be triggered automatically? + Are there any other reasons why Application_End could be triggered? What happened to Saruman after he was knifed by Grima? Brasero says it won't burn the CD because the file is too big, what's going on? Is the "Roman alphabet" what we use for English? I understand that the alphabet for the English language is not strictly English as languages such as French, Dutch and many more use the same alphabet, with few additions in other languages. Is Roman alphabet the common term to refer to this set of symbols for writing texts? Query Feature and Usage based entitlements license I need to query programmatically the Feature license and usage-based license which is available in UI. Could someone please highlight if we can query the same or is it available in UI only, Thanks. Homebrew putty installation does not make the putty command recognisable I would like to instal  with use of Homebrew. I'm performing the following command:  brew install putty   which gives the seemingly correct output:  ==&gt; Downloading https://homebrew.bintray.com/bottles/putty-0.67.el_capitan.bottle.tar.gz Already downloaded: /Users/thisuser/Library/Caches/Homebrew/putty-0.67.el_capitan.bottle.tar.gz ==&gt; Pouring putty-0.67.el_capitan.bottle.tar.gz 🍺  /usr/local/Cellar/putty/0.67: 11 files, 1.5M   However, the putty command is not recognised:  thisuser-541/41:~$ putty -bash: putty: command not found I was looking at  and I didn't realize that Minecraft had some Easter eggs in it. Besides the Christmas chest Easter egg, and the sheep Easter egg, what else is there? How do I find my follower if and when they leave me? I duplicated a few objects with Alt+D and now I want to apply some modifiers to them, however I can't, because they are multi-user objects.  I tried U > Objects but I still can't apply the modifier.  How to make multi user objects single user? How could Luke hide from Vader during the duel on Death Star II? In Return of the Jedi, Vader throws his lightsaber at Luke causing the catwalk come crashing down. Luke uses this in his advantage and hides from him under the throne room platform. Unable to locate his son, Vader tried to lure Luke out of hiding.  But how could Luke conceal himself from Vader in the first place? Did he use a Force power of some kind to blur Vader's sensors? I mean, the underneath of the platform was pretty much an open space with very little possibilities for hiding. The only places I see in the movie are the openings on the both sides of the floor (pointed by the yellow arrows):    The background of a close-up to Luke doesn't give much of a clue (although there is a round shape which could be the bottom of a window frame):    But as Luke reveals himself, he appears to be beneath of the staircase to the dais, right in the middle of it:    There's no way he could have hidden there all the time, because just a couple of seconds before, Vader walked towards and stared at the very same spot:    My first ideas were that Luke used the Force to make himself invisible, or to teleport him to the position. But after taking a look at one of the cross sections of the Emperor's throne room, I assume Luke could have slid almost straight under the floor of the lower level (yellow arrow) and then later  back to the staircase (although we don't see it in the movie, and I'm not sure if Luke knew the ability):    Does someone know better? What should I do when my neural network doesn't generalize well? I'm training a neural network and the training loss decreases, but the validation loss doesn't, or it decreases much less than what I would expect, based on references or experiments with very similar architectures and data. How can I fix this?    As for question        to which this question is inspired, the question is intentionally left general so that other questions about how to reduce the generalization error of a neural network down to a level which has been proved to be attainable, can be closed as duplicates of this one.  See also dedicated thread on Meta: