Texmaker suggest a list of all bibtex-keys when typing the beginning of \citep{•}. I use APACite and therefore often need \citeA{•} though.  First: Is it possible to make texmaker suggests for \citeA{•}?  Second: How can the suggestions for  \citep{•} be turned off (have to scroll through all of them to get the suggestions of \cite{•})?
How can I work with customize completion? I want to add some new auto-completion but I don't know How the wizard works. It's here: User>Customize Completion I don't know what should be writen in the box.
Does electron orbital theory contradict the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? This is similar to , except it's a bug report, not a feature request.  Currently, the nominee's comments on his/her own post are not highlights, unless you click "add / show more comments"  When the page is loaded it looks like:    AfterI click "add / show more comments", it becomes:    Could we have the blue highlighting on the post owner's comments there all the time? It becomes difficult to see the nominees responses to questions, especially on nominations where there aren't enough comments to enable the "add / show more comments" features, like Matt's. Add the ability to lock a question against edits Every nonzero element in a finite ring is either a unit or a zero divisor Let $R$ be a finite ring with unity. Prove that every nonzero element of $R$ is either a unit or a zero-divisor. If I open up many tabs in Chrome, the Tabs start to shrink. This is usually a normal behavior if the tabs would use the whole availible space, BUT in my case the tabs shrink too much. They don't use up the whole availible space anymore, but only go until somwhere at three quarters of the window. The more tabs I open, the larger the availible space gets until it reaches a maximum. This strikes me as somewhat not so normal.  Another funny thing is, if I use a second Monitor to extend my Desktop, Tabs will be smaller on the second Desktop and will only fill half the availible space from the beginning. For example right now I have 6 tabs open, which fill out approximately half the availible space. If I open more tabs, only the tab size reduces. This has not been like that when I first installed the browser.  This is what it looks like:    Is there any solution for this?   I hereby explicitly mean NO extensions. I found enough extensions to handle tabs. I just want them to behave normally without any of those tab-extensions. Re-Installing Chrome does NOT work, I tried that. I had created the xml document with xml version="1.0".  In that document I need to use the greater than symbol &gt; and less than symbol &lt;.  How should I include those symbols? It's not working.  &amp;gt; and &amp;lt; are not working for me.  Is there any special encoder for this? How to only append to clipboard (but not overwrite current data)? I have some troble understanding the Kernel density estimation.  If a consider the next example:  s&lt;-0 z&lt;-density(rnorm(25)) f&lt;-function(i)approx(z$x,z$y,xout=i)$y for(i in seq(min(z$x),max(z$x),length.out = 10000)) s&lt;-s+f(i) s   I expected getting that s is approximately equals to one since I am considering an approximation for the integral of the Kernel density function (that I suppose is also a density). However, I don't get the expected result. Why it doesn's sum one?  The idea behind this is that I wanted to use the Kernel as the density of my data points. I was interpolating to get my explicit function and use with other x values. Or do you know another way to get a density function estimated by fitting? I know DES is outdated, but will is is secure in CBC mode? Can anyone help me understand why not? Will something accelerate forever if a constant force is applied to it on a frictionless surface? If so how? I don't understand the fact that let's say hypothetically I was pushing a block on a frictionless surface, and I kept applying the same force on the object how it would keep accelerating! Wouldn't there have to be a certain velocity where it would stop getting faster? If not then what is actually acting on the object to cause it to accelerate infinitely? How to get rights of admin after I disabled all admin accounts in my computer How to remove the association between two Gmail accounts? I want to remove that other account. Both of them are Gmail accounts. How could I do? I ran into something a couple of weeks ago that I'd never seen before: A filesystem (ext3 I believe) installed to a storage device without a partition. In essence /dev/sdb was the entire filesystem. I know many filesystems can be extended into empty space, so doing this allows extending without dealing with LVM or some other kind of volume manager, but are there any other advantages for setting up storage this way?  The specific case I saw was as the ephemeral data volume for a number crunching server, the boot and root volumes were traditional partitions on a different storage device entirely. - The new notice for protected questions looks like this:     Earn 10 reputation in order to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.  The phrasing of this notice leaves out a lot of info, and is incorrect in many cases:  In the case where the user has just created their account on the site (whether or not they have the association bonus of +100), the default 1 for signing up does count toward the required 10. The message implies that the user has to earn 10 more reputation for a total of 11 (or 111), while the actual requirement is 10 (or 110).  If the user just registered and started off with the association bonus, then later lost part of it (e.g. through bounties or making a downvoted post), earning 10 reputation is not enough to answer protected questions. According to the literal wording of the notice, earning 10 reputation is enough regardless of previous rep loss, but this is not the case.   The easiest fix that can be made, to at least fix part of the problem, would be to explicitly indicate that the association bonus does not count. This was implemented in the prior protected question notice in response to , but was omitted from the new notice. This omission  , and adding this back would remove that. Can we please fix this notice? How exactly was the finalist chosen in the NIST AES competition? Boundary conditions for calculus of variations in phase space and under canonical transformations This might be a stupid question, but I just don't get it. In Hamiltonian mechanics when examining conditions for a $(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{p})\rightarrow(\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{P})$ transformation to be canonical one starts with $$ \dot{q}_ip^i-H(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{p},t)= \dot{Q}_iP^i-\bar{H}(\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{P},t)+\frac{d}{dt}W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)$$ where $\bar{H}$ is the transformed Hamiltonian, and $W$ is the generating function (now a function of $\boldsymbol{q}$ and $\boldsymbol{Q}$). This term shouldn't break Hamilton's principle, since $$ \delta\int_{t_1}^{t_2} dt\frac{d}{dt}W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)=\delta W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)|_{t_2}-\delta W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)|_{t_1}=0-0=0 .$$ But I don't see why the variation of $W$ should disappear at the endpoints (say at $t_1$). Expanding leads to: $$ \delta W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)|_{t_1}=\left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial q_i}\right)_{t_1}\underbrace{\delta q_i(t_1)}_{=0}+ \left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial Q_i}\right)_{t_1}\delta Q_i(t_1)=\left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial Q_i}\right)_{t_1}\delta Q_i(t_1).$$ $\boldsymbol{Q}$ is itself a function of $\boldsymbol{q}$ and $\boldsymbol{p}$, so $$ \delta Q_i(t_1)=\left(\frac{\partial Q_i}{\partial q_k}\right)_{t_1}\underbrace{\delta q_k(t_1)}_{=0}+\left(\frac{\partial Q_i}{\partial p_k}\right)_{t_1}\delta p_k(t_1)=\left(\frac{\partial Q_i}{\partial p_k}\right)_{t_1}\delta p_k(t_1). $$ It seems as if we also needed the variation of $\boldsymbol{p}$ to vanish at the endpoints, and I don't get this because (at least in cartesian coordinates) $\boldsymbol{p}=m\dot{\boldsymbol{q}}$ and the velocity can be different along the original and the varied orbitals even at the endpoints (they can point in totally different directions), so in general $\delta \dot{\boldsymbol{q}}(t_1)\neq 0$. What am I doing wrong? Can someone help me with this, please? How to change material's color in blender game engine? In Fringe's season 1, the episode  (1x13) shows how  travels on VertusAir flight 718. We witness how he develops some strange symptoms, withdraws into a lavatory and transforms into a porcupine-like monster.  At the end of season 3, Peter "switches" the timeline (changing the past and making the present continue in a different timeline henceforth) from blue- to orange-verse. Various statements throughout the 4th season indicate time (the date) was not reset; Olivia and Walter have been working on Fringe cases for some three years etc. - hence it is safe to say that season 4 plays 3 years after season 1.  Then, in the episode  (4x16), the events from 1x13 happen again, up to the point of Bowman's transformation, which this time doesn't happen (not aboard the plane, anyway). As far as I can tell, great care was taken to exactly recreate the events from the season 1 episode, including hiring the same actors to play the flight attendants once again ( and ), so obviously this is supposed to be the same event with slight changes.  Peter, as well as Olivia - who is in the process of regaining her memories from the blue-verse -, remember the events from 1x13 and note the difference that Bowman's transformation happened later this time, implying that in the orange-verse, everything related to flight 718 played out the same way, except for the small difference that the transformation happened a bit later.  BUT ... all of this happened 3 years later!! Is there any explanation for this?  How unlikely is it that in the orange-verse timeline, Marshall Bowman is on the very same flight with the very same flight attendants 3 years after the same would have happened in the blue-verse? Mind you, this is not a "small change" in the course of events while mostly everything else stays the same.  So, why did Peter and Olivia realize the transformation happened a tad later in the orange-verse timeline, but were not baffled by the fact that essentially the same events as in the blue-verse happened, but three years later?  EDIT: Not only the flight and the flight attendants were the same in both episodes. The passenger next to Bowman was the same, an elderly lady played by  both times, as well. Moreover, the transcripts of  and  reveal that the dialogue between Bowman, the passenger next to him, and the cabin crew is the same down to the lines of text until the moment of transformation.  Interestingly, the announcement by the captain in the beginning seems to be different - starting the inflight movie + selling headsets vs. circling before beginning the final descent + selling snacks. On the other hand, this could be presumed to be a slight retcon, as in 4x16, it was crucial for the plot that the plane would be close to landing, and starting the inflight movie would not make much sense right before landing. Encopresis: how can we encourage our child to clean himself or ask for help immediately instead of ignoring the dirty underwear? joomla 2.5 in module install.mysql.utf8.sql dosent work