How can I install poolshot for Windows in Ubuntu 16.04?  Poolshot can be downloaded from
Can .exe and .msi files (Windows software) be installed in Ubuntu?
Broken "Network profile" link when Area51 is their only account Back-transformation of regression coefficients I'm doing a linear regression with a transformed dependent variable. The following transformation was done so that the assumption of normality of residuals would hold. The untransformed dependant variable was negatively skewed, and the following transform made it close to normal:   $$Y=\sqrt{50-Y_{orig}}$$  where $Y_{orig}$ is the dependent variable on the original scale.   I think it makes sense to use some transformation on the $\beta$ coefficients to work our way back to the original scale. Using the following regression equation,   $$Y=\sqrt{50-Y_{orig}}=\alpha+\beta \cdot X$$  and by fixing $X=0$, we have   $$\alpha=\sqrt{50-Y_{orig}}=\sqrt{50-\alpha_{orig}}$$  And finally,  $$\alpha_{orig}=50-\alpha^2$$  Using the same logic, I found  $$\beta_{orig}=\alpha\space(\alpha-2\beta)+\beta^2+\alpha_{orig}-50$$  Now things work very well for a model with 1 or 2 predictors; the back-transformed coefficients resemble the original ones, only now I can trust the standard errors. The problem comes when including an interaction term, such as  $$Y=\alpha+X_1\beta_{X_1}+X_2\beta_{X_2}+X_1X_2\beta_{X_1X_2}$$  Then the back-transformation for the $\beta$s are not so close to the ones from the original scale, and I'm not sure why that happens. I'm also unsure if the formula found for back-transforming a beta coefficient is usable as is for the 3rd $\beta$ (for the interaction term). Before going into crazy algebra, I thought I'd ask for advice... What makes a DSLR better than a Point & Shoot? Why should I put up with the inconvenience of lugging around a DSLR?  They look cool, but is there more substance to it? When I try to install a software using Ubuntu Software center I get:  Failed to download repository information Check Your Internet connection   When I try to do a apt-get install something, I get:  407  Proxy Authentication Required   I use a proxy server that requires a user-name and a password. I have set my systems proxy manually, by plugging in the required numbers in the Networks proxy and applied it system wide. I guess the problem now is plugging in my user-name and password.  When I use INTERNET via Mozilla, it specifically asks me for my user-name and password. Prove by induction that for all $n \geq 3$: $n^{n+1} > (n+1)^n$ Google Sheets QUERY won't display cell text if other cells have numbers I'm not sure what is happening in my Google Sheet query and could really use some help. I have  that demonstrates and explains the issue.   Basically, I'm using a query to pull data from a Google Spreadsheet that is populated by a Google Form. If the form submits only numbers (100), there is no problem. However, if someone submits a string ($100 or 100 dollars), the query will not display the string. It will only display form submissions that are 100% numbers.   Also, if the 1st submission is a string (not 100% numbers) the query will work.   Here is my query  =query(data!B2:CL,"select B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, CI, BZ, CA, BA  where J = 'Industry Certification'",false)   Any ideas on why this is happening?  Also, I'm aware that I can limit the form to numbers only. I'm trying to avoid that and learn 'why' this is happening. Is uncertainty principle a technical difficulty in measurement? Is the uncertainty principle a technical difficulty in measurement or is it an intrinsic concept in quantum mechanics irrelevant of any measurement?  Everyone knows the thought experiment of measuring the position of an electron. One can detect electron's position by hitting it with a photon, due to Compton scattering the collision of the photon with electron will change electron's momentum. This experiment is used to explain uncertainty principle to layman, but it is over simplified, isn't it? It also gives an impression that if there was a better suited experimental method the uncertainty principle becomes irrelevant.   I personally think it is intrinsic as it arises from the non-zero commutator of position and momentum operators irrespective of the measurement process. Am I right?  EDIT: My question is similar to certain extent to  and . The answers there are nice but they focus on explaining basics of quantum mechanics more than they comment on the technical difficulty part. In the answers of question 2 there are statements like "So, it's not a knowledge limit" and "you're sort of correct when you say it's an observational limit" without further comments  To summarize, assume hypothetically we managed to find a way in the future where we can have a look at an electron without disturbing it by measurement or causing its wave function to collapse, would the uncertainty principle still hold in such a case?? Why/Why not? How can I pass arguments to a batch file? I need to pass an ID and a password to a batch file at the time of running rather than hardcoding them into the file.  Here's what the command line looks like:  test.cmd admin P@55w0rd &gt; test-log.txt Simple way to transpose columns and rows in SQL? I am looking for an adjective/noun for someone who is able to speak/ makes speeches very well and uses words effectively to influence/impress people. Maybe the underlying question is what the Voltage-Current curve looks like. Can I drive it from a voltage source (like you drive a heater) or from a current source (like you drive an LED)? Or even different than those two options?  ADDITIONAL1: Say (hypothetically) I have two commercially available identical Peltier's, they are spec'd 6V/3A. Can I connect these in series to a 12Vdc power supply without any worries?  CONCLUSION1: Current/Voltage load curve is reasonably linear, both driving from current or voltage source will do fine as long as the device is operated within its spec. (Olin Lathrop, Russell McMahon)  CONCLUSION2: Don't drive a Peltier from PWM, power loss due to current increase, grows more rapidly than cooling power. (Olin Lathrop)  CONCLUSION3: Beware the mechanical wear of the device with continues cycling. Eg. don't use a thermostat on/off controller. (Russell McMahon) Allow HTML in excerpt Here is my excerpt code.  // Generate custom excerpt length function wpbx_excerpt_length($length) {     return 300; } add_filter('excerpt_length', 'wpbx_excerpt_length');   How do I allow html like &lt;a&gt; &lt;b&gt; &lt;i&gt; &lt;br&gt; AJAX: Check if a string is JSON? Summation by parts (finite calculus) of $\sum\limits_{i=0}^{n}i\cdot a^i$ I'm studying the calculus of finite differences and have read about summation by parts:  $\sum f(x)\Delta g(x) = f(x)g(x) - \sum g(x+h)\Delta f(x)$.  The tutorials I'm using go a bit woolly at the point of introducing this technique: they use examples where they set $\Delta g(x)$ to $2^x$, and don't really show how to use it for anything a bit harder. I'm at a loss for basic examples.  I wondered if it is possible to determine  $S.n = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{n}i\cdot a^i$  using summation by parts?  If so, how is it done?  Thanks in advance. Order of finite fields is $p^n$ Let $F$ be a finite field. How do I prove that the order of $F$ is always of order $p^n$ where $p$ is prime? Calculate the Factor Group $(\mathbb{Z}_4 \times \mathbb{Z}_6)/\langle(0,2)\rangle$ Add Point to Plot3D Shine a light into a superconductor A type-I superconductor can expel almost all magnetic flux (below some critical value $H_c$) from its interior when superconducting. Light as we know is an electromagnetic wave. So what would happen if we shine a light deep into a type-I superconductor? Suppose the magnetic field of the light is significantly lower than $H_c$.  And what about type-II superconductors? To show that Fermat number $F_{5}$ is divisible by $641$. How can I show that  $F_{5}=2^{2^5}+1$ is divisible by $641$. Compact vs Mirrorless - why pick one over another? What would be a reason for one to pick the compact (whatever it'd be P&amp;S or something more advanced) over mirrorless compact system camera  ?  Right now market is quite confusing — we have huge market of tiny-sensor compacts, we have mirrorless that use sensors in a size of these from P&amp;S cameras (Nikon 1 being notable example), we have compacts with sensors bigger than most popular mirrorless system (Canon G1X vs m4/3), we have lot of APS-C sensor mirrorless which are matched by some of the compacts (Fuji X100 being most notable example, but even Leica has its X2),  and to make it even more confusing — Sony released RX1 with full frame sensor, beating crap out of every mirrorless on a market.  So what are your arguments to pick compact over a mirrorless?  Why are they better, what's the reason behind logic of companies like Fujifilm which at the same time offers P&amp;S and X-mount mirrorless using same sensor size?