In a sentence that ends with a quoted proper name (of a newspaper), where should the "period" go? Currently it is this:  the “Morning Call”.  ...but that doesn't look right.  Should it be this:  the “Morning Call.”  ...or this:  the Morning Call.
I have been/am being taught that end punctuation should always go inside quotes. For example, you are supposed to write:     Marvin thought it was "awful."   The problem is I do not see how does this make sense. Intuitively, I always wrote:     Marvin thought it was "awful".   as that makes more logical sense — you want a quote to be an exact replication of what somebody else said, so why should you add punctuation inside?  I always thought it made more sense to not touch the quote and add anything after or before if it must be added.  So, why should I put end punctuation inside quotes?
Lower bounds for ${{2n} \choose {n}}$ What are common lower bounds for ${{2n} \choose {n}}$?    Edit:  I made a mistake in my original question.  It doesn't change my question but there is no reason for me to include the mistake. preventDefault when clicking bounty "cancel" link When you click "start a bounty" then "cancel," href="#" exiles you to the top of the page and you lose your spot near the end of the question's comments. Clicking anywhere else on the page simply closes the bounty popup; clicking "cancel" ought to do the same.  In case that wasn't clear:    Dramatization aside, it's a nuisance. Can the click event on that anchor be preventDefaulted? This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. See  for more information.   This is a community wiki for IDEs available on Ubuntu. Please post one IDE per answer (including more than just a screenshot or a link, please at least put a short description).  In your answer, tell us what the IDE is for (which language(s) or if it is RAD capable). Why isn't Higgs coupling considered a fifth fundamental force? Issue in using longtable within table environment I have an issue making a long list with wrapped text. The table can be several page long. I use longtable and assign the width for each column but as soon as I put it in the \begin{table} \end{table}, it does not work. It clips the table. I want to make a label for the table so I put it in the table environment.  And is there a way to automatically adjust the width so that I don't need to assign the value manually?  Thank you.   Tung  \begin{table} \centering \begin{longtable}{|p{6.5cm}|p{2.5cm}|p{2.5cm}|p{2.5cm}|} \hline Name                                      &amp; Company     &amp;  Catalog Number   &amp;   Comments    \\ \hline Small DNA FRAG Extract Kit-100PR          &amp; VWR         &amp;   97060-558 &amp; \\ \hline Acrylamide 40\% solution 500 mL           &amp; VWR         &amp;   97064-522 &amp;  \\ \hline Bis-acrylamide 2\% (w/v) solution 500 mL  &amp; VWR         &amp;   97063-948 &amp;  \\ \hline GeneRuler 100 bp DNA Ladder, 100-1,000 bp &amp; Fermentas   &amp;   SM0241  &amp;    \\ \hline Mini Vertical PAGE System                 &amp; VWR         &amp;   89032-300  &amp;  \\ \hline \end{longtable} \label{tab:list} \end{table} bounding a $C^1$ function that upholds $f'(t)\leq 1-f(t)^2$ I have shown that if two $n\times n$ matrices $A$ and $B$ are invertible, then $AB$ is also invertible. I am having problems though with showing that $(AB)^{-1}=B^{-1} A^{-1}$. I thought of using their left-multiplication transformations but it seems that this is only associative and not commutative so I can reverse $L_A L_B$ Are there number systems corresponding to higher cardinalities than the real numbers? How to get more complete references Sometimes when I work I write something like  \begin{proposition} \label{my new result} ... \end{proposition} ... blah blah in Proposition \ref{my new result} blah...   but then I realize that the Proposition should actually become a Lemma. So I change it to  \begin{lemma} \label{my new result} ... \end{lemma}   The problem is that I then have to hunt down all the places where I wrote Proposition and change it to Lemma, which is tedious and error-prone. Well, we have search facilities in editors, so it is not really that complicated, but still it feels the wrong way to do this. I would be happier to write  \begin{proposition} \label{my new result} ... \end{proposition} ... blah blah in \labelNameFor{my new result} \ref{my new result} blah...   where labelNameFor is a hypothetical magic command which outputs "Proposition". Then I could forget about all the places where I reference the result and just make any changes I wish.  Is there a way to do something like this? As far as I understand the label/ref mechanism is simply based on counters, so I do not see a straightforward way, but maybe someone more clever and industrious then I am has given the problem some thought. Two figures side by side How can I put two figures side-by-side? Not two sub-figures, but two actual figures with separate "Fig.: bla bla" captions.  A figure is supposed to spread over the entire text width, but I have two figures which are narrow and long, and I need to save the space in order to withstand the pages limit. Is it better in C++ to pass by value or pass by constant reference?  I am wondering which is better practice.  I realize that pass by constant reference should provide for better performance in the program because you are not making a copy of the variable. How to unmap TAB and do not make Ctrl-I invalid in VIM I use time manager for a polygon layers with dates and it works. I would like to see the cummulative addition of my polygons. So I have 4 periods I want the poylgons from 1900-1950 to be added to the new ones in 1950-2000 etc in the next time step. How can I perform that or does another open source tool exist for that? As far as we know the gaze of the basilisk will instantly kill someone or eventually petrify him/her in case the gaze is somehow softened or reflected.   But why would it melt the film in Colin's camera? The film is just plastics with some specific chemicals.   A bit broader question would be - is the some information that the basilisk's gaze is somehow destructive to non-alive objects too and under what circumstances could it happen? Math Induction Proof: $(1+\frac1n)^n < n$ Cost increase and suspend Different ways to prove there are infinitely many primes? This is just a curiosity. I have come across multiple proofs of the fact that there are infinitely many primes, some of them were quite trivial, but some others were really, really fancy. I'll show you what proofs I have and I'd like to know more because I think it's cool to see that something can be proved in so many different ways.  Proof 1 : Euclid's. If there are finitely many primes then $p_1 p_2 ... p_n + 1$ is coprime to all of these guys. This is the basic idea in most proofs : generate a number coprime to all previous primes.  Proof 2 : Consider the sequence $a_n = 2^{2^n} + 1$. We have that  $$ 2^{2^n}-1 = (2^{2^1} - 1) \prod_{m=1}^{n-1} (2^{2^m}+1), $$  so that for $m &lt; n$, $(2^{2^m} + 1, 2^{2^n} + 1) \, | \, (2^{2^n}-1, 2^{2^n} +1) = 1$. Since we have an infinite sequence of numbers coprime in pairs, at least one prime number must divide each one of them and they are all distinct primes, thus giving an infinity of them.  Proof 3 : (Note : I particularly like this one.) Define a topology on $\mathbb Z$ in the following way : a set $\mathscr N$ of integers is said to be open if for every $n \in \mathscr N$ there is an arithmetic progression $\mathscr A$ such that $n \in \mathscr A \subseteq \mathscr N$. This can easily be proven to define a topology on $\mathbb Z$. Note that under this topology arithmetic progressions are open and closed. Supposing there are finitely many primes, notice that this means that the set $$ \mathscr U \,\,\,\, \overset{def}{=} \,\,\, \bigcup_{p} \,\, p \mathbb Z $$ should be open and closed, but by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, its complement in $\mathbb Z$ is the set $\{ -1, 1 \}$, which is not open, thus giving a contradiction.   Proof 4 : Let $a,b$ be coprime integers and $c &gt; 0$. There exists $x$ such that $(a+bx, c) = 1$. To see this, choose $x$ such that $a+bx \not\equiv 0 \, \mathrm{mod}$ $p_i$ for all primes $p_i$ dividing $c$. If $a \equiv 0 \, \mathrm{mod}$ $p_i$, since $a$ and $b$ are coprime, $b$ has an inverse mod $p_i$, call it $\overline{b}$. Choosing $x \equiv \overline{b} \, \mathrm{mod}$ $p_i$, you are done. If $a \not\equiv 0 \, \mathrm{mod}$ $p_i$, then choosing $x \equiv 0 \, \mathrm{mod}$ $p_i$ works fine. Find $x$ using the Chinese Remainder Theorem.   Now assuming there are finitely many primes, let $c$ be the product of all of them. Our construction generates an integer coprime to $c$, giving a contradiction to the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.  Proof 5 : Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions (just so that you not bring it up as an example...)  Do you have any other nice proofs? ffmpeg is not even cutting this and other mp4s to the nearest second Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it I have received a manuscript to review for a journal. The interesting thing is, I had already reviewed this article (exact same title, abstract and author list, almost exact same content) for another journal a few weeks ago where I recommended that it be published, but only after major revisions of both form and content. When I first reviewed it, I wrote a two-page review, listing some questions and several “actionable” comments, ranging from some concerns about exactness of the text (some conclusions didn't seem fully backed by the results) all the way down to trivial stuff (grammar, a few typos, graphic issues with the figures, etc.).  Now, the manuscript has come to me for review again, but it is almost unchanged from the first version. None of the serious stuff has been addressed, and even most of the trivial stuff was not fixed (there's at least one remaining typo, and the figures still aren't fully legible). However, I think this behavior from the authors is clearly a bad signal, which should be somehow conveyed to the editor: they're not willing to amend their work, and would rather do some journal-shopping.  What would you suggest me to do? Should I just re-send my earlier review? Add a note to the editor about my knowledge of the “history” of the paper? Or maybe even include it in my review, so the authors are aware that people know of their behavior, and maybe feel bad enough to change their ways?    PS: I wrote it in the present tense, but it's actually a story from my past. I'm not sure I did the right thing at the time, and I think it's better to actually formulate it as an open question… I own a notebook running Ubuntu 16.04 with Unity DE that does not have any keyboard LEDs to indicate NUM-Lock or CAPS-Lock states.  It would be useful for me to see them anyway, ideally through an indicator in Unity's panel.   Please note that I only want to see the states of NUM-Lock, CAPS-Lock and optionally Scroll-Lock. I do not want to see whether any other modifier keys like Shift, Ctrl, Alt, Super etc. are currently pressed. I only want a replacement for my missing LEDs.  Are there any working indicators available?    I already have read , but it does not suit my needs. indicator-xkbmod only displays a wrong icon but does not react on keyboard NUM-/CAPS-Lock status changes, kbstate is for KDE only and key-mon does not show the NUM-/CAPS-Lock states but indicates key presses to modifier keys.