I am working in a project with both QGis and ArcGIS. I do mostly cosmetic work and digitalize with QGIS then transfer the shapefiles on ArcGIS. At work I am the only one to work on QGIS, the other members have ArcGIS, (not our choice, question of tight budget). This also mean I have no support, no one is familiar with the program.  This worked fine as long as I was only transfering ready files to ArcGIS, but lately I worked for a short time on the files in ArcGIS (I projected the files and edited) and eventually I had to take back the files from ArcGIS and edit further with QGIS.  When I send back those files in ArcGIS they are messed up.  The edited shapefiles are right on QGIS (topology fine, TOC fine), but on ArcGIS I have "fantoms" polygons or objects (without any geometry) AND overlapping polygons: the old version of the edited polygon/object plus the new polygon/object.  Though I have a column with unique IDs to help sort that out, some of the fantoms/old polygons get a "0" for ID some other the same ID as the original polygon.   So I delete the mistakes in ArcGIS, the file is fine according to ArcGIS. I double check on QGIS, and surprise, I am now missing polygons there!  This is becoming a big mess, and I am unable to understand where are my mistakes coming from so I can avoid them in the future.  I also have problems with special signs (Swedish signs, ö, ä, å) translating in other signs or letters from on program to the other. I have made some reference excel table to join to the gibberish TOC, but when constantly editing, it is complicated to keep track of the newest version. Any other solution is welcome!
This tiny little script deletes all small features in all layers. This works fine but the size of .shp files are not reduced. Please tell me why...  canvas = iface.mapCanvas() expr = QgsExpression("$length&lt;100") for l in canvas.layers():     l.startEditing()     it = l.getFeatures(QgsFeatureRequest(expr))     for ft in it:         l.deleteFeature(ft.id())     l.commitChanges()
Maybe I'm just hearing the wrong comments, but it seems that Slytherin is considered a dark house by almost everyone.  I know when both reading the books and watching the movies, I always had a feeling of foreboding when there were a number of Slytherin house members around or the time when Harry and friends went into Slytherin and felt this feeling was emphasized by the writing and film directing.  We hear very little positive about Slytherin (other than the repeated line that Harry would be a great wizard if he went in Slytherin) and there really isn't a list of great wizards who were in Slytherin House.  Even in the movie Deathly Hallows (I can't check the book - I loaned it to my sister 3 weeks after it was published and haven't seen it since!), McGonagall specifically asks Filtch to lead all the Slytherin students into the dungeon while Hogwarts is under siege by Voldemort.  She doesn't specify that any Slytherin students remain behind to help fight.  Is this intentional?  Did JKR intentionally create a bad reputation and not present any counter-examples so we'd believe all of Slytherin was bad?  Most characters in the Potter-verse are complex.  While we can admire James and Lily Potter, we also see how James teased and taunted Snape, showing us a harsh side of James, and we see that there is good in Snape.  We even see complexity in Voldemort as a villain who is mixed-blood, but hates those of mixed blood and wants purity for all witches and wizards.  With all the complex characters, it seems odd that there is essentially nothing to redeem the House of Slytherin - which is not just one character, but is a group represented by a number of characters.  But yet it seems as if it's presented, in both books and movies, as dark and full of schemers and bad people.  Are there indications, and especially more than a few or just tiny ones, that there are a fair number of good witches and wizards in Slytherin? Is my US visa still valid after change in name? Protect .NET code from reverse engineering? Updating to latest Blender version I currently have version 2.74. How do I update to version 2.76? I do not see any links in the UI to update my version of Blender Why is it that logistic regression becomes unstable when classes are well-separated? What does well-separated classes mean? I would really appreciate if someone can explain with an example. If I have a sequence of .obj (or any other readable format) files created from my own simulation code (say cloth simulation), can I use the rendering capabilities of blender to generate a video?   Is there a way to set the material properties for frame 1 and use the same or rest of the frames while the corresponding meshes are imported afresh from that ones I provide? As far as I know, those are the only two.  They should be pronounced Soogher and Soor, shouldn't they?  I looked them up on Dictionary.com, and their etymologies reveal no trace of an SH, except where the listing for sugar had:     Middle English sugre, sucre (noun) &lt; Middle French sucre  &lt; Medieval Latin succārum  &lt; Italian zucchero  &lt; Arabic sukkar;  obscurely akin to Persian shakar, Greek sákcharon   I see an obscure kinship to shakar, but the word morphed so many times since then that the SH disappeared pretty much completely.  And sure is even worse, with no sign of SH:     Middle English sur ( e ) &lt; Middle French sur, Old French seur  &lt; Latin sēcūrus   Why are these the only two like this? Why is a 1" sensor actually 13.2 × 8.8mm? I'm wondering how sensor sizes are calculated. The Sony RX100 reportedly has a sensor size of 1" which is 13.2 x 8.8 mm according to the press release and various sites.  How does that work? That's a pretty small inch.  The Wikipedia page on  has this chart:   which doesn't really help. (The 1" format is labelled Nikon CX. Chart by Moxfyre under the CC-BY-SA license.)   If full frame/35 mm refers to the horizontal size, what does 1" refer to? Probability of Obtaining the Roots in a Quadratic Equation by Throwing a Die Three Times What does "65" mean? Strange object.ray_cast() behavior object.ray_cast() is not behaving as I would expect in Blender 2.77. I understand that it expects object local coordinates, but this problem happens when the object is not translated, rotated, or scaled.  If I edit the shape of the cube mesh without moving the cube, the results of ray_cast() seem plain wrong.  Steps to reproduce   Create a cube at 0,0,0 Move a vertex of the cube from 1,1,1 to 5,5,5 Create an empty called "src" at 2,2,2 Create an empty called "dst" at 2,2,6   Run this python  cb = bpy.data.objects['Cube'] src = bpy.data.objects['src'] dst = bpy.data.objects['dst'] hit, loc, norm, face = cb.ray_cast(src.location, dst.location) bpy.ops.object.empty_add(location = loc)   This is the result on my system. The new Empty created at the interesection point is selected:    The source and the destination are both at x = 2 and y = 2. The cube has a surface at x = 2 and y = 2. So why on earth is the intersection point at x = 2.22222, y = 2.22222? If I was... If I were...   When is it correct to use "If I was" vs. "If I were" in standard English? Independence of disjoint events According to  and my own understanding, the tilde expands to the home directory:  $ echo ~ /home/braiam   Now, whenever I want the shell expansion to work, i. e. using variable names such $FOO, and do not break due unexpected characters, such spaces, etc. one should use double quotes ":  $ FOO="some string with spaces" $ BAR="echo $FOO" $ echo $BAR echo some string with spaces   Why doesn't this expansion works with the tilde?  $ echo ~/some/path /home/braiam/some/path $ echo "~/some/path" ~/some/path "There are several reasons proposed for the collapse of the bridge." There are several reasons proposed for the collapse of the bridge.   Is this present simple tense or the present perfect tense? I thought it might be the latter since there is a retrospective aspect to the sentence. However, I am quite unsure. Embedding ordinals in $\mathbb{Q}$ All countable ordinals are embeddable in $\mathbb{Q}$.  For "small" countable ordinals, it is simple to do this explicitly.  $\omega$ is trivial, $\omega+1$ can be e.g. done as $\{\frac{n}{n+1}:n\in \mathbb{N}\} \cup \{1\}$.   $\omega*2$ can be done as $\{\frac{n}{n+1}:n\in \mathbb{N}\} \cup \{1+\frac{n}{n+1}:n\in \mathbb{N}\}$, and $\omega*n$ as $\bigcup_{i\le n} \{i+\frac{n}{n+1}:n\in \mathbb{N}\}$  That immediately also gives $\omega^2$ as  $\bigcup_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \{i+\frac{n}{n+1}:n\in \mathbb{N}\}$  And going further is still relatively easy: We can biject the above embedding of $\omega^2$ onto a single interval $(0,1)$, e.g. through $f(x)=1-\frac{1}{x+1}$ since this is an order preserving bijection from $\mathbb{Q}^+$ to $(0,1)$, allowing us to get $\omega^2+n$, $\omega^2*n$ etc. And by iterating that process, we can get any ordinal below $\omega^\omega$.   But this sort of embedding fails at $\omega^\omega$ as the iteration of $f$ doesn't seem compatible with taking the infinite union - figuratively speaking, we'd squish things to $0$. So what would an explicit embedding of $\omega^\omega$ look like? And the question, then, is if it is possible to give an explicit embedding of $\epsilon_0$? Is the fact that Peano arithmetic cannot prove well-foundedness of $\epsilon_0$ an indication that it cannot be embedded by such elementary functions and their iterations?  And what about even bigger countable ordinals such as the Veblen ordinals, Feferman-Schütte, Bachmann-Howard? From its definition, even if the above all are possible, I assume that the definitive bound of where one can define an effective procedure for the embedding must be Church–Kleene - is that a correct conclusion?  Lastly, does the situation change when we use $\mathbb{R}$ instead of $\mathbb{Q}$, which would allow us to use, perhaps, more easily understood yet inherently complex functions?  Edited because $\omega^2 \neq \omega^\omega$ How can I make a message appears on my PC when my phone is ringing? When I'm at work, I usually have a headset on my head and I am listening to music. My phone is always on vibrate to respect co-workers.  However, I don't keep the phone in my pocket because of its size, so I don't feel it vibrating.  I miss a lot of calls.  I was wondering if it's possible to forward "phone is ringing" notifications to the PC, ideally via a Bluetooth connection.  I would not mind installing a 3rd-party app on the phone or software on the PC. Are there sets $A$ and $B$ such that $A \in B$ and $B \in A$? I think that the question is clear from the title:     Are there sets $A$ and $B$ such that $A \in B$ and $B \in A$?   My feeling is that the definition of any two such sets will be circular (we can't define $B$ till we define $A$ and we can't define $A$ till we define $B$), and hence will be excluded by some axiom.  On the other hand, I can't see an inherent contradiction, though I wouldn't be surprised if some form of Russell's paradox pops up, pushed behind one more set of braces. Does it look good to edit the question you're answering? I have a question about editing practices:  Does it look good to edit a question you have just answered?  For example: say I had just answered a question, then saw that the question had some minor formatting issues. Should I edit it? Does it turn up voters off when they see that I am answering a question I changed, possibly to better suit my answer? Fluent and Query Expression — Is there any benefit(s) of one over other? LINQ is one of the greatest improvements to .NET since generics and it saves me tons of time, and lines of code.  However, the fluent syntax seems to come much more natural to me than the query expression syntax.  var title = entries.Where(e =&gt; e.Approved)     .OrderBy(e =&gt; e.Rating).Select(e =&gt; e.Title)     .FirstOrDefault();  var query = (from e in entries              where e.Approved              orderby e.Rating              select e.Title).FirstOrDefault();   Is there any difference between the two or is there any particular benefit of one over other?