THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE FOR  as i'm already using the ON function, but it doesn't work :  I'm trying to delete dynamically created elements.  Everytime a user make a search, a tag with the keyword is added containing an X button to delete this tag (it's add to the .tags div) :  &lt;div class="tags"&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div class="all"&gt;      &lt;input type="search" class="searchfield" /&gt;       &lt;button class="searchbutton"&gt;add tag&lt;/button&gt; &lt;/div&gt;   The problem is, when i click on the X button, the on("click" function is never executed! (i never get the alert) :  $( document ).ready(function() {      $(".searchbutton").click(function(){         addTag($(".searchfield").val());     });      $(".removeTag").on("click", function(){         alert("yes");     }); });  function addTag(search) {   $(".tags").append("&lt;div class='tag'&gt;&lt;span class='keyword'&gt;" + search + "&lt;/span&gt;&lt;button class='removeTag'&gt;X&lt;/button&gt;&lt;/div&gt;"); }   Check the demo here  you have to make a search to see the added tag  I use jQuery 1.9.1  Thanks
I have a bit of code where I am looping through all the select boxes on a page and binding a .hover event to them to do a bit of twiddling with their width on mouse on/off.  This happens on page ready and works just fine.  The problem I have is that any select boxes I add via Ajax or DOM after the initial loop won't have the event bound.  I have found this plugin (), but before I add another 5k to my pages with a plugin, I want to see if anyone knows a way to do this, either with jQuery directly or by another option.
Java Server Socket not connecting Must $k$-subalgebra of $k[x]$ be finitely generated? fake proof of $\forall a. \forall b. a = b \to 1 = 0$ I saw a less formal version of this fake proof that claimed to prove $2=1$ but because it assumed $a=b$ from the start I knew why it was wrong. It does seem however that the proof can be used to prove an certain implication I find very odd however. Clearly $\forall a. \forall b. a = b \to 0 = 1$ is false because I could pick $a$ and $b$ to be $1$ and then I would have derived 0 = 1 with no other conditions. So there must be something wrong with this proof that I am not seeing.  proof of $\forall a. \forall b. a = b \to 0 = 1$:  $a = b \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (assume)\\ a+a=a+b  \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (x=y \to f(x) = f(y), f(x)=a+x)\\ 2a=a+b \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,  (a+a=2a)\\ 2a-2b=a+b-2b \,\,\, (x=y \to f(x) = f(y), f(x)=x-2b)\\ 2(a-b)=a+b-2b \,\, (distributive)\\ 2(a-b)=a-b \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (-b=b-2b)\\ 2=1 \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (x=y \to f(x) = f(y), f(x) =x/(a-b))\\ 1=0 \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (x=y \to f(x) = f(y), f(x) =x-1) $  now that I have "proven" $\forall a. \forall b. a = b \to 0 = 1$ I can now pick a and b to be 1.  $ 1 = 1 \to 1=0 \,\,\,\,\,\, (a=1, b=1, above)\\ 1 = 1 \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (\text{reflexivity})\\ 1=0 \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (\text{modus ponens}) \\ $  So now it seems that I have managed to derive $1=0$. Clearly I messed up given that no one has been able to show $ZFC$ inconsistent and ostensibly this fits well within the most studied aspects of $ZFC$. Either that or a random guy that makes meme's online found the most profound result in mathematics ever.  So where have I missed the mistake? ffmpeg - how to apply filters without losing quality Modern Linux commands that parallel uuencode/uudecode functionality I need to get binary files into text format.  Years ago, I used uuencode/uudecode, and it was easy:  uuencode file.xls &gt; file.txt # Delete file.xls # Do whatever with file.txt # Now I need file.xls back uudecode file.txt &gt; file.xls   But uuencode/uudecode is not on my system, and as I look around, the yum/rpm process is ugly--this gives me the clue that maybe no one uses it any more and instead there is something more modern to do this.  I looked at xxd and hexdump but couldn't get them to do it.  Could just be dumb user issues.  What can I use on Linux to do this?  Would like it to be something that tends to be in the native install so I don't need to yum/rpm it if possible.  Just for your own understanding, what I'm specifically trying to do now is source control an *.xls file but the corporate tool doesn't allow *.xls in.  I respect that constraint normally, but in my context, an *.xls is a configuration table for my code so It is logically like source code, but the corporate SVN trigger is physical--if it's *.xls, it gets rejected, so I'll encode it and source control the *.txt file.  Thanks! "as much as you and I" vs. "as much as you and me" How to add a Skype indicator? I am trying to install reaver 1.4, but when I run ./configure ; make I get this message at the end  int ret_val = EXIT_FAILURE, r = 0;   I have searched a fair bit and cannot find an answer, any help would be appreciated. I apologize if this has been answered and I've just failed to find it. Loading D3.js data from a simple JSON string Why are objects at rest in motion through spacetime at the speed of light? I read that an object at rest has such a stupendous amount of energy, $E=mc^2$ because it's effectively in motion through space-time at the speed of light and it's traveling through the time dimension of space-time at 1 second per second as time goes forward.  What troubles me here, is the fact that it is traveling through space-time at the speed of light. Why is it at the speed of light? Group of positive rationals under multiplication not isomorphic to group of rationals How can we extract specific files from a large tar.gz file? I found  but, when I tried the mentioned command there, I got the error:  $ tar --extract --file={test.tar.gz} {extract11} tar: {test.tar.gz}: Cannot open: No such file or directory tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now   How do I then extract a file from tar.gz? Bottom frame of listing appears on top of the next page How does asymmetric encryption work? I've always been interested in encryption but I have never found a good explanation (beginners explanation) of how encryption with public key and decryption with private key works.  How does it encrypt something with one key and decipher it with another key? My international conference in Europe this May has been canceled due to the COVID-19. I have a ticket, purchased from TAP air Portugal, from Toronto, Canada to Lisbon. Because it is a non-refundable fare, they don't want to give a refund.  They won't allow me to reschedule later than May 31 of this year. This won't be useful for me.  What options do I have? I'd prefer to get a full refund.  (I am a US citizen if it matters)  Note: They offered to refund just the taxes, which is about 10% of the value. That's not horrible, but I'd rather have the whole thing returned. Why does this not work with an imaginary exponent? Could someone please tell me why this exponentiation rule does not work when the exponent is imaginary?  The following seems to be true but is only true if $x$ is an integer.  $$e^{2\pi ix} = \left( e^{2\pi i} \right)^x = 1^x = 1$$ Ought we only form beliefs based on sufficient empirical evidence? In , John Loftus often makes statements like:  Faith, as I argue, is an irrational leap over the probabilities. Probabilities about such a matter are all that matter. We should think exclusively in terms of them. (19) If God created us as reasonable people, then the correct religious faith should have sufficient evidence for it, since that’s what reasonable people require. (22) Because science is the only game in town. It works. It produces the goods. There isn’t a better alternative. (119)  Loftus' attitude seems representative among many atheists; while I'm aware that there are other views, it is this kind of view which leads to the title of this question: Ought we only form beliefs based on sufficient empirical evidence? Here are some sub-questions which may help guide answers:  How can we get an ought from an is, given that evidence only describes what is? Reformulating the title as a hypothetical imperative doesn't seem to help, because the scientific method doesn't seem to ever make a hypothetical imperative binding. And yet, surely those who would agree with the quoted text would find certain hypothetical imperatives binding?  Given that the scientific method includes &quot;basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability&quot;,  seems to apply: a given axiomatic formulation of the scientific method will be unable to imply certain (virtually all, it turns out) truths. To say that science is complete—there are no other methods of knowing things—seems to imply that science is inconsistent. Is this 'seems' an illusion?  Does the scientific method require that we make observations prior to forming hypotheses? It could be argued that probabilistically, trying to come up with hypotheses before making a 'sufficient' number of observations will result in a failed hypothesis too much of the time. Is there evidence to support this which can probabilistically rule out all other kinds of hypothesis-forming?  Must we accept any unfalsifiable claims? The answer seems to be 'yes', given e.g. the example of crystal structure discussed by Michael Polanyi in  (43-48, 1984 paperback). A set of geometries seemed to well-describe many crystals found in nature, and even if some crystals aren't well-described, that doesn't falsify the instances in which it does. This opens up the question of which unfalsifiable claims we ought to accept.  If we model human reasoning as , we can ask what is meant by 'sufficient' by what the 'probabilities' are, prior to any observations: what  ought we start with? I am tempted to say &quot;the most effective one&quot;, but that presupposes a purpose; are we given an objective purpose?   I am left with the suspicion that one ought to only follow the scientific method to the extent that one only wants to predict one's future observations—this smells like a tautology. It seems to beg the question to say that the most important area of 'truth' is objective reality, a question which cannot be answered with the scientific method. A 'yes' answer to the main question would seem to fall prey to something like  of .  I was tempted to phrase my question as:  Is science the only source of truth?  I believe this is a bad question, for a few reasons:  We care about whether a method can reliably arrive at truth/knowledge. The terms 'truth' and 'knowledge' would possibly stir a debate about , which may not be a prerequisite for the answer to my question. My question makes explicit that we are talking about what one ought to do, which is not explicit in the above formulation. How to keep an SSD in shape on Yosemite? As of OS X 10.10, Apple uses kext signing. Ever since it has become  to manually activate TRIM for third-party SSDs on OS X. That means users with non-Apple SSDs will sooner or later see degrading write speeds.   So I am wondering what are my options to avoid this situation. Some approaches I could think of imply additional problems:   Are you aware of any alternative approach, that does not require disabling kext signing?  Are there tools or tricks to manually clean up a SSD (i.e. issue a TRIM command)? If I decided to temporarily use a tool like TRIM Enabler how long would it need to be activated, in order to clean the disk?   To summarize: No TRIM on Yosemite. What can I do? Retrieve Preview Image URL of Salesforce Image Files I know it is possible for a group $G$ to have normal subgroups $H, K$, such that $H\cong K$ but $G/H\not\cong G/K$, but I couldn't think of any examples with $G$ finite. What is an illustrative example?