I have a Dell inspiron 1545 running Windows 7 professional and I have recently fallen victim to a Trojan virus that has somehow managed to surpass AVG, ZoneAlarm and Malwarebytes too!  I have tried running full scans with all 3 security programs and the Trojan keeps coming back so now it’s the final straw for me.  What I am kindly asking your help for is how can I completely wipe the hard disk drive 100% and also how to completely remove the OS and reinstall it.  Basically I want to wipe absolutely everything from scratch but I have no idea where to start?
What should I do if my Windows computer seems to be infected with a virus or malware?  What are the symptoms of an infection? What should I do after noticing an infection? What can I do to get rid of it? how to prevent from infection by malware?   This question comes up frequently, and the suggested solutions are usually the same. This community wiki is an attempt to serve as the definitive, most comprehensive answer possible. Feel free to add your contributions via edits.
Are there any options of bash with which it is invoked? I  that the default shell that I use when I start Terminal (with Ctrl+Alt+T) is /bin/bash.   And running the built-in command  on  as:   type -p bash   returns the result as:  /bin/bash   Suggesting the same executable is run when I do Ctrl+Alt+T or say bash.  This shell is the same as an invocation of the command  with some of its options passed to it right? If yes, what are these options?   As an example, perhaps the -i option gets passed so as to make the bash shell interactive?   PS: Maybe  is related too, but I cannot seem to piece together all the pieces here. What does the term "Extended Partition" mean? Is it safe to use this type of partition? In the image below, what does Extended 103 GB mean? UTF-8 -> ASCII in C language How to initiate a Full Reboot/Shutdown on Windows 10 Fall Creators Update Environment: Windows 10 Fall Creators Update / 1709  Background: There is a new feature in the Fall Creators update where post reboot applications and browser windows are reopened to the state they were in before the reboot.  Issue: The only time i really reboot is when I no longer want the applications to be open. Its driving me crazy that i cant fully shutdown/reboot the machine.   Solutions attempted I always reboot by using Win+R and running "Shutdown -r -t 0". the "-r" option should do a full reboot but that isnt working for me.   Any other suggestions or hacks to control via commandline on how to do a full reboot vs. this Zombie reboote (Which is a feature i like when i did not want to reboot and had to) Inverse Green's Function identity in derivation of Hedin's equations I'm trying to work through a derivation of Hedin's Equations in Effect of Interaction on One-Electron States by Hedin and Lundqvist (1969) and I've come across an identity that is given without much explanation that I'd like to understand.   We start with an equation of motion with single particle Green's functions G:   $\left[ i\frac{\partial}{\partial t_1} - h(1) - \phi(1) - V_H(1)\right] G(1,2) - i\int v(1^{+},3) \frac{\delta G(1,2)}{\delta \phi(3)} d3 = \delta(1,2)$  where $1=(x_1,t_1)$, $h$ is the one-electron kinetic energy and ion interaction, $\phi$ is a small perturbing field that is set to zero at the end, $V_H$ is the Hartree potential, and $v$ is the Coulomb interaction.  They then insert the identity  $\frac{\delta G(1,2)}{\delta\phi(3)} = -\int G(1,4) \frac{\delta G^{-1}(4,5)}{\delta\phi(3)} G(5,2) d(4,5)$  which is then used to define the self energy  $\Sigma(1,2) =  -i \int v(1^+,3) G(1,4)\frac{\delta G^{-1}(4,2)}{\delta\phi(3)} d(3,4)$.  I know this identity is related to the definition of the inverse Green's function  $ \int G(1,3) G^{-1}(3,2) d(3) = \delta(1,2)$  but I can't figure out how to get from this definition to the identity that is inserted into the equation of motion. Any ideas?  Thank you! At the very beginning of SG1, the Goa'uld invade Earth, and then return somehow. How did they manage to return? There was no DHD, and somehow they didn't let it be known where they were going, IE, there was no log of the return. This seems a bit odd to me... Let $\kappa, \lambda,\theta$ be infinite cardinals of $M$ where $M$ is a transitive model of ZFC. Let $\mathcal{P}=Fn(\kappa\times \omega,2)$ (finite functions from $\kappa\times \omega$ to 2) and G is a (M,P)-generic set. I want to show $(\lambda^\theta)^{M[G]}=(max(\kappa,\lambda)^\theta)^M$. One direction is easy $(\lambda^\theta)^M \leq (\lambda^\theta)^{M[G]}$ and $(\kappa^\theta)^M\leq (\kappa^\theta)^{M[G]}\leq ((2^\omega)^\theta)^{M[G]}=(2^\theta)^{M[G]}\leq (\lambda^\theta)^{M[G]}$ where $(\kappa \leq 2^\omega)^{M[G]}$ is by the forcing construction. But now I am not quite sure how to get the other direction. Any thoughts? (Note that I have used bold text frequently simply to highlight the key points of my question for those who do not have the time to read through it thoroughly (it is not very long, however); I hope this is not considered offensive.)  There are many textbooks on multivariable calculus. However, some textbooks on multivariable calculus do not focus very much on the theoretical foundations of the subject. For example, a textbook might state a result along the lines of "the order of partial differentiation is immaterial" without proof and ask the student to use this rule to solve problems. Similarly, theorems such as those due to Green and Stokes are often not proved in their full generality.   Therefore, I ask the following question:      What are some good theoretical   multivariable calculus textbooks?   Since "theoretical" is somewhat ambiguous, let me state the following criteria which I would like a "theoretical" textbook on multivariable calculus to satisfy:   The textbook should be rigorous and it should not state a theorem without proof if the theorem is proved in at least one other multivariable calculus textbook. (Of course, the textbook may omit certain theorems; however, this criterion at least ensures that major theorems in multivariable calculus are not stated without proof and used purely for the sake of computations. Also, this criterion permits the textbook to state an interesting theorem if it is beyond the scope of all multivariable calculus textbooks.) The textbook should be primarily based on developing the theoretical foundations of multivariable calculus; therefore, applications such as learning how to compute the partial derivative of a function, learning how to solve extremum problems, learning how to compute etc. should be kept to a minimum. In particular, the textbook can assume that the reader has already seen at least an informal treatment of the subject where these aspects are emphasized. The textbook should have a rigorous treatment of differentiability in $n$-dimensional Euclidean space (e.g., the inverse and implicit function theorems should be proven), Riemann integration in $n$-space, and differential forms (e.g., Stokes theorem should be proven). It would also be a bonus if the book treated the general concept of a manifold. Textbooks with minimal prerequisites are preferred; however, please feel free to suggest books meeting the above criteria even if the prerequisites are quite demanding. Finally, it would also be preferable, but not essential, for the book to only treat multivariable calculus.   Examples of books meeting the above criteria: "Analysis on Manifolds" by James Munkres, "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin, and "Calculus on Manifolds" by Michael Spivak.   Although I have studied theoretical multivariable calculus already (four years ago), I could never find "the perfect book" (relative to myself, of course). Every book has its virtues; Rudin for its elegance, Munkres for its beautiful exposition, and Spivak for its "quick and dirty" approach. I am hoping that someone will be able to suggest a book that (relative to myself) is "perfect". Also, this question can be useful to other students who have not yet studied the subject and wish to learn it.   Thank you very much for all answers! Please do feel free to suggest as many books as you can think of so we can form a big list. Also, please try to explain why a particular book is good or at least why you think it is good. I suppose it is fine to suggest a book that is already suggested provided you have a different view as to why the book is good. My model has a clear plastic (or glass) dome with objects inside.  The objects appear dark.  I've tried the glass shader with color 100% RGB, with very small IOR, and using just a refraction shader.    I know Cycles has problems with caustics, but I just want broad illumination to fall clean through the glass.  The light-to-column path can ignore refraction, but is blocked or tremendously attenuated. The camera-column path needs refraction, and seems to work fine anyway.  This demo image offers all optical paths of interest:   light upon object, seen directly light upon object, seen through glass (looks okay) light through glass onto object, seen directly. This is the shadow on the lit side of the column just below the glass tubing.  I expect full illumination, but there is shadow.  There is some light, but it's diffuse light from the floor. light through glass onto object, seen through glass. This     I did at one point try non-progressive rendering, and find extremely coarse light where there shouldn't be shadow, but this is not a practical way to make nice images. I've even tried cranking up certain sampling settings to many thousands, but still get bad noise though less, at the cost of long render times. I  would like to finish my creations sometime before "Star Trek, the Generation After the Next" becomes real life, if you know what I mean.  The next image is an example. I think Transmission in Sampling was 5000, but not sure.    I'm using Cycles in Blender 2.67 on a quad core Linux machine, 16GB RAM. Machine limits have never been a problem for 3D rendering.  Possibly, I screwed up some setting when I made my startup file, and just need to fix it. OTOH maybe this is just a limitation of path tracing, or of the way Cycles does it. If that's the case, what to real-world Blender artists do when they need to produce images on a budget and schedule?  What is the practical real-world fix? This is a question that arose in the comments here:   I normally hide footnotes from the TOC by doing this:  \section[title]{title\footnote{This is a footnote.}}.   This works in a lot of document classes (memoir, article, ...), but not in all of them. amsbook, for example, uses the optional argument only for the running heads so the footnote mark still ends up in the TOC. So what is the 'universal solution'? When voting to migrate an off-topic question, why is the list of sites limited? Earlier, I voted to close  as off-topic.  The question has since been closed.  There is an , but it didn't show up in the list when I selected "off-topic".  The options were:   Meta Stack Overflow Server Fault Super User Webmasters Programmers   Questions:   Should Wordpress appear in this list? Are there any other sites that should appear in the list?   Should all non-beta sites appear in that list by default? Why do some devices have 200V on the case? I recently got a desktop LED lamp, and I feel a "strange" slight vibration when touching the metal case. I found that other devices also have high voltage on their case.  What is the reason/trade-off to design the PSU that way? Are "real" transformers inefficient? Even if it's harmless, why is the high voltage connected to the metal case, and not just through insulated wires?    When I turn the lamp on, the setup in the picture measures the power line (220V) 214Vpp (59Vrms). When I also touch the metal case, the voltage drops down to around 30V.  AC adaptor: "Reality" of length contraction in SR I was in argument with someone who claims that length contraction is not &quot;real&quot; but only &quot;apparent&quot;, that the measurement of a solid rod in its rest reference frame is the &quot;real length&quot; of the rod and all other measurements are somehow just &quot;artificial&quot; and &quot;apparent&quot;. Seemed to me like a bad conversation about poorly defined words and not really relevant to physics, but then some quotes were offered:  ...so that the back appears closer to the front. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself.  (Rindler)  The effects are apparent (that is, caused by the motion) in the same sense that proper quantities have not changed.  (Resnick &amp; Halliday) At the same time, the  insists that length contraction and time dilation are &quot;real&quot;, with observable consequences:  Time and space dilation are often referred to as ‘perspective effects’ in discussions of STR. Objects and processes are said to ‘look’ shorter or longer when viewed in one inertial frame rather than in another. It is common to regard this effect as a purely ‘conventional’ feature, which merely reflects a conventional choice of reference frame. But this is rather misleading, because time and space dilation are very real physical effects, and they lead to completely different types of physical predictions than classical physics. [...] However, this does not mean that time and space dilation are not real effects. They are displayed in other situations where there is no ambiguity. One example is the twins' paradox, where proper time slows down in an absolute way for a moving twin. And there are equally real physical effects resulting from space dilation. It is just that these effects cannot be used to determine an absolute frame of rest.  I went through a lot of Einstein, Minkowski and Lorentz original material, and didn't find anything about what is &quot;real&quot; and what is not. Finally, I know about muons, where the effects of SR seem to be very real (from , but I had seen it in a physics class before):  When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (their preferred decay product), and muon neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays generally continue in about the same direction as the original proton, at a velocity near the speed of light. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 456 m (2,197 µs×ln(2) × 0,9997×c) at most (as seen from Earth) the time dilation effect of special relativity (from the viewpoint of the Earth) allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the Earth's surface, since in the Earth frame, the muons have a longer half life due to their velocity. From the viewpoint (inertial frame) of the muon, on the other hand, it is the length contraction effect of special relativity which allows this penetration, since in the muon frame, its lifetime is unaffected, but the length contraction causes distances through the atmosphere and Earth to be far shorter than these distances in the Earth rest-frame. Both effects are equally valid ways of explaining the fast muon's unusual survival over distances.  So which is which? Why do Rindler, Resnick &amp; Halliday use the word &quot;apparent&quot;? Limit of $n$th root of $n$! Is there any evolutionary/physiological advantage to multi-lateral symmetry? Just wondering ; I get the impression a large number of multicellular organisms are multi-lateral in their physical structure. Why would evolution/mutation have retained multi-lateral symmetry in an organism? What advantage/s does symmetry provide an organism?  EDIT:  By multi-lateral symmetry I mean at-least bi-lateral symmetry (as in the case of many beings such as elephants, crabs and fishes), but perhaps more than bi-lateral too (starfish come to mind)  END EDIT: At what time will the upcoming Ubuntu release be made available? Are nested transactions allowed in MySQL? String comparison in Python: is vs. == HDMI to VGA convert I just bought a new HP Pavilion dv7t Quad Edition laptop that has HDMI out. I already have a couple of monitors that are VGA and I'd like to hook up one of these to dual monitors.  I've read some sketchy reviews of products that try to convert directly from HDMI (digital) to  VGA (analog), so I was wondering if someone has a good recommendation on how to hook these two together. How do you match only valid roman numerals with a regular expression?