I am trying to get the effect on the clouds (that makes it look like it's fading out getting to the lower part) in the image below. How can I achieve this?    For those who need to see what I've done so far please see the image below. I used the pen tool to create the clouds.
I want to create an effect/color like this image of the cloud in the Parse.com logo. It is not quite white, and seems to have a texture. I am new to illustrator, but have a white "cloud" made thanks to some other tutorials. How do I proceed?
How common is "thrice"? Changing url of exposed filter When I used an exposed filter the filter selection is passed as name/value pair in the url, for example:  members?field_a=valuea&amp;field_b=valueb   How can I set it up to use more of a "pathauto" style url:  members/valuea/valueb What is the meaning of the "expansion of space"? When we say that "the space between galaxies is expanding," what do we really mean? For instance, if I think of space as being a Cartesian grid, then when space expands should I think of it as adding more grid-points or as making the distance between the grid-points larger? Or is this a flawed picture of space-time even when far from significant mass densities?  It seems to me that it must be the case that we are "adding more grid-points" because otherwise we would not observe the expansion since anything that occupied that part of the grid (e.g. light, my hand, etc.) would also expand by a corresponding amount (otherwise, after a sufficient amount of expansion, we would be able to observe sub-atomic scale processes as being macroscopic in scale). But if it is the case that we are adding more grid-points, then the "expansion" of space seems like a misnomer: shouldn't it be called the "creation" of space?  That being said, either case (adding grid-points or stretching distances) could conceivably be the same process depending on the nature of space-time (i.e. if it were discrete but dense - like the Rationals - rather than either strictly discrete (Integers) or strictly continuous (Reals)... I hope that analogy makes sense).   So what is really going on in intergalactic space? What is the meaning of its expansion? Does it correspond to creating more space, stretching the space that's already there, or something more subtle? How to upload files to server using JSP/Servlet? I'm trying to understand how it's possible to always reduce the degrees of freedom of a system represented by $n$ coordinates $q_{i}$ for which holds $f(q_{1},...,q_{n})=0.$  For example, let's consider the system represented by $x+\cos y=5$. How can i show that this system has only 1 degree of freedom? Prove that any complex matrix can be expressed in term of Hermitian and anti-Hermitian matrices How can we prove that any complex matrix can be expressed in term of hermitian and anti-hermitian matrices of the following form $A = H_1 + iH_2$ Where, $H_1$ is hermitian and $H_2$ is an anti-hermitian matrix If $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n$ are real numbers larger than $1$, prove that $$\dfrac{1}{1+x_1}+\dfrac{1}{1+x_2}+\cdots+\dfrac{1}{1+x_n} \geq \dfrac{n}{\sqrt[n]{x_1x_2\cdots x_n}+1}$$   Attempt  AM-GM doesn't work here since we will get an upper bound. I don't see Cauchy-Schwarz working either. Thus, I think a substitution might work, but I am unsure of which one to use. Creating mask file from shapefile using ArcGIS for Desktop? I have a shapefile of Lakes over my study area. Each polygon has attribute information of each lake, name, shape etc. Actually I want to eliminate all lakes from analysis. In other word, I want lakes to have 0 value and the area that out of boundary of lake to have their orginal pixel values. when I do subset using this shapefile, the output is not I want because my shapefile deoesn't have any value outer boundary of lake.   How can I build a proper mask file (inner part of lake has 0 value, outer is 1) using this shapefile in ArcGIS Desktop? Showing $\sup \{ \sin n \mid n\in \mathbb N \} =1$ Maximum weight an average bicycle can carry? How to configure lightdm to allow manual logins in Ubuntu 14.04 I used to modify /etc/lightdm/lightdm.conf, adding the line greeter-show-manual-login=true, in order to allow login for hidden users and root.  Now I've just installed the new Ubuntu 14.04 and the file lightdm.conf is no longer located in /etc/lightdm. It's in /etc/init and has been totally modified.  How can I force lightdm login screen to show a field to input a login name? Functional equations leading to sine and cosine How to perform the modular reduce of Rijndael's finite field I am trying to understand how to calculate the modular reduction of Rijndael's finite field.  The example on  page says that {53} • {CA} = {01}, because (11111101111110 mod 100011011) = {3F7E mod 11B} = {01} = 1.  I am able to get to the point where I have 3F7E mod 11B, but cant seem to figure out how the reduction works.        11111101111110 (mod) 100011011      ^100011011             1110000011110       ^100011011             110110101110        ^100011011             10101110110         ^100011011             0100011010            ^100011011 &lt;-- here, right shifted two places?             00000001   From this example, why does it right shift two places at one point?  I also found an example that 0x1b*0xaa equals 0x8c. Trying to solve this myself I get to the point: 0xE0E mod 0x11B   111000001110 ^100011011   11011010110  ^100011011    1010111010   ^100011011     010001100    ^100011011      10010111   This makes it 0x97 How can I prevent iTunes from auto starting when I plug in an iOS device? Why do people rule out local hidden variables? I bet the automatic response to my question would be "Bell's theorem" and of course I am not disputing Bell's proof. I am however uncertain of one of his assumptions.  The so called "no conspiracy" assumption states that we somehow posses this magical thing called free will which makes us able to break free from the causal chain of events that make us measure the $y$-axis instead of the $x$-axis and so on in experiments. Obviously this makes little sense once reviewed under the light of logic. What this naturally implies is that, if a theory is fully deterministic, it is instantly super-deterministic.  Simon Kochen and John Conway published a theorem in 2009, , which simply-put states: either everything is deterministic (super-deterministic) or every particle has free will.  Among the few who accept this to the fullest extent is Gerard 't Hooft. He has proposed that what we call sub-atomic particles are really just templates and that there is a realm beneath the quantum where the true fabric of reality is "hidden". By accepting determinism he escapes Bell's theorem (due to not having to accept the "no conspiracy" assumption) and can construct a local, deterministic and realist hypothesis of reality. In Gerard 't Hooft's model there is cellular automata somewhere near the Planck scale which gives rise to the "emergent quantum mechanics".  This means that there exist no superpositions in objective reality, the cat is always either dead or alive, no collapse of wave functions, no branching universes, non-locality or retro-causality.  The big question for me is basically: Why do people have such a hard time accepting determinism? Some will object and say "oh but it's SUPER-determinism", but that makes no sense whatsoever, either everything is determined (determinism) or only somethings are (quasi-determinism). By accepting it we escape Bell's theorem. Bell himself was well aware of this and mentioned it a few times in interviews in the 80's.  I know some are concerned that if we accept complete determinism we can no longer do science because it's all a HUGE CONSPIRACY. Gerard 't Hooft has answered critics who bring up this here: , section 6.  Additionally, another author who has taken a deeper look into the worries of "conspiracies" in QM interpretations is Peter J. Lewis in his paper  (also ).  So to all of you who dismiss local hidden variables I ask: Why? Is it better to have an ErrorDocument 404 redirect back to the homepage or a standard 404 error page? Prove the following: If $a \mid bc$, then $a \mid \gcd(a, b)c$. Prove the following: If $a \mid bc$, then $a  \mid \gcd(a, b)c$.   I tried to set $\gcd(a, b)$ to $b$ and used the fundamental theorem of arithmetic to prove that it is divisible by $a$, but I can't prove that $a \mid bc$, if and only if $a\mid b$ and $a\mid c$. Please help. Thanks. Do votes get canceled if voting privilege is lost? If I'm below 15 reputation, I can't alter the public score of an answer/question.  Suppose I gain the privilege by getting the required rep and vote some posts up. Then, for any reason, I fall below 15 and lose the ability to vote. What about the votes I already did cast?  Do post scores get altered by ignoring my vote, or will they stay the same? In other words, is losing a privilege retroactive?  If yes, what about when I gain my privilege back? Are my votes automatically restored, or do I have to cast them again from scratch?  I made the easiest example, but this applies to any higher privilege When does the amount of skew or prevalence of outliers make the median preferable to the mean? I know that "deviations in the data are devil", and when the distribution is highly skewed, it is better to consider median as average rather than mean, but how to decide these hard-limits.  For example:   CASE 1:   Assume X = 10,20,30,40,50,60,70 In this case, I think that it is better to use mean and that it will give very accurate results.  CASE 2:   Assume X = 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,7000 In this case, I think that it is better to use median instead of using the mean.  CASE 3:    Assume X = 10,20,30,400,500,600,700 In this case, I think it is better to use IQR (Inter Quartile Range)    But I'm stuck with how to decide these hard-limits i.e. which to use in which condition, in general.   I've found a tool working on subjected principle, which takes context-less sample-distribution as input and determines whether mean is close/moderate or against the null-hypothesis.  Find References:-     (For Mean Test)  (For Median Test)   What I'm really looking is a good answer which states how to derive these conclusions. Why is the comma splice an error? It's always drilled into us that we shouldn't use comma splices. They're bad, to be avoided and poor form.  But why? What makes the comma a faulty choice in something like this:     I never liked school, it was boring and repetitive most of the time.   It could be replaced with a semicolon, dash, period or colon and be "correct." Yet to a fair amount of people, the comma seems fine. If it weren't, it wouldn't be found so often in online forums, text messages, emails and so on.  What makes the comma between two sentences an error?