I was tasked to research and create a manual about installing an FTP server on Windows 7, and everything's fine and all until the specified user part during the creation of an FTP site. I'm told that the FTP user must be a new user. Language barrier sets back my understanding of the issue at hand (Japanese colleagues), and what required of me is to create a user that can't do anything other than serve as a login credential when connecting to ftp, or just not allow me to log in (remotely or locally) to Windows. So I was wondering how to do it. I've tried just removing the user from all groups including the Users group, and it works, but I know there must be a better way. Will removing the user from all groups (including Users) present an issue?  TLDR:  I need a way to create a user for FTP access only. User should not be able to log in Windows.  This needs to be done on IIS in Windows 7.  UPDATE:  This  about user groups doesn't provide enough information for me. If for example, I used IIS_IUSRS group (as it seems the most likely), what will I be able to do?
I've setup a HTTPS and FTP site in IIS but how can I add users to use the FTP site?  Does they necessarily need an account with password in the computer to be able to use it?
I have been using this command successfully, which changes a variable in a config file and then executes a Python script within a loop: for((i=114;i&lt;=255;i+=1)); do echo $i &gt; numbers.txt; python DoMyScript.py; done  As each DoMyScript.py instance takes about 30 seconds to run before terminating, I'd like to relegate them to the background while the next one can be spawned. I have tried what I am familiar with, by adding in an ampersand as below: for((i=114;i&lt;=255;i+=1)); do echo $i &gt; numbers.txt; python DoMyScript.py &amp;; done  However, this results in the below error: -bash: syntax error near unexpected token `;' How do you tell if caps lock is on using JavaScript? How do you tell if caps lock is on using JavaScript?  One caveat though: I did google it and the best solution I could find was to attach an onkeypress event to every input, then check each time if the letter pressed was uppercase, and if it was, then check if shift was also held down. If it wasn't, therefore caps lock must be on. This feels really dirty and just... wasteful - surely there's a better way than this? Rsync filter: copying one pattern only I am trying to create a directory that will house all and only my PDFs compiled from LaTeX. I like keeping each project in a separate folder, all housed in a big folder called LaTeX. So I tried running:  rsync -avn *.pdf ~/LaTeX/ ~/Output/   which should find all the pdfs in ~/LaTeX/ and transfer them to the output folder. This doesn't work. It tells me it's found no matches for "*.pdf". If I leave out this filter, the command lists all the files in all the project folders under LaTeX. So it's a problem with the *.pdf filter. I tried replacing ~/ with the full path to my home directory, but that didn't have an effect.  I'm, using zsh. I tried doing the same thing in bash and even with the filter that listed every single file in every subdirectory... What's going on here?  Why isn't rsync understanding my pdf only filter?    OK. So update: No I'm trying  rsync -avn --include="*/" --include="*.pdf" LaTeX/ Output/   And this gives me the whole file list. I guess because everything matches the first pattern... I just read on wikipedia that the the complex projective line is homeomorphic to the riemann sphere. How do I prove this? But, before that I have an extremely silly doubt that has been eating me. In the complex projective line, antipodal points are identified, but in the Riemann sphere they are clearly distinct. Then how can the two be homeomorphic.   I found out the following map from the complex projective line to $S^2$. But how do I prove this is a homeomorphism? Finding the inverse of this functions seems complicated, and then how do I prove that the inverse map of a open subset is a open subset, and vice versa?  $f:\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^1 \to S^2 = [z:w] \to \frac{(2Re(w\bar{z}), 2Im(w\bar{z}),|w|^2-|z|^2)}{(|w|^2+|z|^2)} $ I'm  trying to create a FPS game in blender game engine. When I do KeyBoard[Spacebar] sensor and hook it up to a simple motion of z +1 or something like that, the guys pops up really fast as if he didn't have any motion between being on the ground and being in the air. Is there a way to make a more realistic, more slow jump in BGE? What is the difference between the examples below?  Generally, in a newspaper, news is based on past tense (things which have already happened).   Then why are headlines written in ways that says: He Kills (shouldn't it be: He Killed)?  For example:  Parliament passes bill vs. Parliament passed bill  Also  He kills his friend vs. He killed his friend  Please help. "compare with" or "compare to" Please check both sentences and let me know, which one is correct and why?   She compares me with her boyfriend.  She compares me to her boyfriend. Correct usage of will and would What tense should I use to describe something in the past but probably is still true? The title may be a bit confusing. See the below example:     The movie (was/is) so good.   The simplest guideline on deciding which tense to use, past tense or present tense, to describe an object comes down to whether the description was only true that that time or is true even to the present point of time.  But now we talking about literary work(movies,books,etc) of which quality tend to stay the same over time, which tense should we use? A type of the body is JSON Blob in a form of:  {"key1":"val1";"key2":"val2"}  I wanted to convert it into a Map&lt;String, String&gt;. Do I have to manually deserialize it or there's a class which can handle that? If $n$ vectors are linearly independent, is their span $\mathbb{R}^n$? Have $n$ vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$.  If the $n$ vectors are linearly independent, can we conclude that their span is $\mathbb{R}^n$? Prove without using graphing calculators that $f: \mathbb R\to \mathbb R,\,f(x)=x+\sin x$ is both one-to-one, onto (bijective) function. Prove that the function $f:\mathbb R\to \mathbb R$ defined by $f(x)=x+\sin x$ for $x\in \mathbb R$ is a bijective function.    The codomain of the $f(x)=x+\sin x$ is $\mathbb R$ and the range is also $\mathbb R$. So this function is an onto function. But I am confused in proving this function is one-to-one. I know about its graph and I know that if a function passes the  horizontal line test (i.e horizontal lines should not cut the function at more than one point), then it is a one-to-one function. The graph of this function looks like the graph of $y=x$ with sinusoids going along the $y=x$ line. If I use  a graphing calculator at hand, then I can tell that it is a one-to-one function and $f(x)=\frac{x}{2}+\sin x$ or $\frac{x}{3}+\sin x$ functions are not, but in the examination I need to prove this function is one-to-one theoritically, without graphing calculators. I tried the method which we generally use to prove a function is one-to-one but no success. Let $f(x_1)=f(x_2)$ and we have to prove that $x_1=x_2$ in order fot the function  to be one-to-one. Let $x_1+\sin x_1=x_2+\sin x_2$ But I am stuck here and could not proceed further. Remote Desktop Settings Missing I'm trying to setup remote connection to my Windows 10 machine. During the setup I noticed that my installation is missing some settings all the tutorials have. Can anyone tell me why I'm stupid and what I should do? Below you can find a screenshot of what I'm talking about. The first image is how it should be. The second picture is a screenshot on my machine.      Edit: After popular request, my windows version: Find and replace text within a file using commands How can I find and replace specific words in a text file using command line? Mark or don't mark required fields if all are required? If all fields in a form are required should they be marked somehow (eg. with an asterisk)?  I see this done a lot and find it redundant?  There could be a difference in big forms and small forms, but in big ones I would add a note at the top that all fields are required, but I wouldn't necessarily do that on small ones.  What do you think is the right approach? Is it feasible to build a stream cipher from a cryptographic hash function? A few years ago I devised a symmetric-key system that worked like so:  H()   = some hashing function h     = the number of bits in the result of H() key   = bits to be used as a key ^     = the XOR operation +     = concatenation len() = the length function (in bits)  max = ceiling(len(cipertext) / h) pad = pad_0 + ... + pad_max pad_0 = H(key) ^ H(plaintext) pad_n = H(pad_(n-1)) cipherpart_n = plaintext_n ^ pad_n ciphertext = H(plaintext) + cipherpart_0  + ... cipherpart_max   Basically, it builds up a "pad" based on the hash of the message and hash of the key and XORs the message against it.  I am not actually an expert, so I was wondering why an approach like this isn't very common. Flight reservation for Schengen visa One of the necessary documents for a Schengen visa for non EU citizens is proof of your flights, but it doesn't state the actual (e-)tickets (for which I already paid), or the reservation of flights.  So my question is, which option would be more acceptable (if I can provide any of them) to provide printed tickets to an EU member embassy or reservation of flights (reservation does not expect payment)? If $|f(z)|\leq |f(z^2)|$ on the unit disk, show that $f$ is a constant function. Suppose $f$ is holomorphic in the unit disk $D=\{z: |z|&lt;1\}$ and $|f(z)|\leq |f(z^2)|$ on $D$. Show that $f$ is a constant function.   My Try:  I wanted to use Strong Maximum Principle, but failed to prove that $f$ is bounded on $D$. I want to try this problem in my own. Can anybody please give me just a hint? I have been reading Geoff Cumming's 2008 paper  [~200 citations in Google Scholar] -- and  am confused by one of its central claims. This is one in the series of papers where Cumming argues against $p$-values and in favour of confidence intervals; my question, however, is not about this debate and only concerns one specific claim about $p$-values.   Let me quote from the abstract:     This article shows that, if an initial   experiment results in two-tailed $p= .05$, there is an $80\%$   chance the one-tailed $p$-value from a replication will fall in   the interval $(.00008, .44)$, a $10\%$ chance that $p &lt; .00008$,   and fully a $10\%$ chance that $p &gt; .44$. Remarkably, the   interval—termed a $p$ interval—is this wide however large   the sample size.   Cumming claims that this "$p$ interval", and in fact the whole distribution of $p$-values that one would obtain when replicating the original experiment (with the same fixed sample size), depend only on the original $p$-value $p_\mathrm{obt}$ and do not depend on the true effect size, power, sample size, or anything else:     [...] the probability distribution of $p$ can be derived without   knowing or assuming a value for $\delta$ (or power). [...] We do not assume any prior knowledge   about $\delta$, and we use only the information $M_\mathrm{diff}$ [observed between-group difference] gives about $\delta$ as   the basis for the calculation for a given $p_\mathrm{obt}$ of the distribution of   $p$ and of $p$ intervals.      $\quad\quad\quad$    I am confused by this because to me it seems that the distribution of $p$-values strongly depends on power, whereas the original $p_\mathrm{obt}$ on its own does not give any information about it. It might be that the true effect size is $\delta=0$ and then the distribution is uniform; or maybe the true effect size is huge and then we should expect mostly very small $p$-values. Of course one can start with assuming some prior over possible effect sizes and integrate over it, but Cumming seems to claim that this is not what he is doing.  Question: What exactly is going on here?    Note that this topic is related to this question:  with an excellent answer by @whuber. Cumming has a paper on this topic to:  -- but that one is clear and unproblematic.  I also note that Cumming's claim is repeated several times in the 2015 Nature Methods paper  that some of you might have come across (it already has ~100 citations in Google Scholar):     [...] there will be substantial variation in the $P$ value of repeated experiments. In reality, experiments are rarely repeated; we do not know how different the next $P$ might be. But it is likely that it could be very different. For example, regardless of the statistical power of an experiment, if a single replicate returns a $P$ value of $0.05$, there is an $80\%$ chance that a repeat experiment would return a $P$ value between $0$ and $0.44$ (and a $20\%$ change [sic] that $P$ would be even larger).   (Note, by the way, how, irrespective of whether Cumming's statement is correct or not, Nature Methods paper quotes it inaccurately: according to Cumming, it's only $10\%$ probability above $0.44$. And yes, the paper does say "20% change". Pfff.) I was trying to install Ubuntu 12.04 in VirtualBox 4.2.12r84980. I see    this kernel requires an x86-64 CPU, but only detects an i686 CPU, unable to boot   But I am using a 64 bit Windows 8, and trying same .iso for trying Ubuntu. Then what is the problem?