I discovered that ArcGIS Diagrammer no longer supports ArcGIS Desktop beyond 10.3. This was the go-to tool for reordering fields for a feature class within a file geodatabase. I have subtypes applied, so I have to operate within the geodatabase environment.  Are there any suitable alternatives that would operate with ArcGIS Desktop (specifically ArcCatalog) 10.5 or higher?  While my question is similar to  and others, most of those fixes are several years out-of-date, and apply to older versions of ArcGIS.
Using ArcGIS 10.0, is it possible to reorder the fields in a file geodatabase, and have the order persisted to the database?  We considered exporting to XML, and writing a parser to change the field order, then re-creating a new database from the XML. This seems like a laborious process.  Another idea is to import the existing field definitionss into Excel, re-order them, export to CSV, then write a Python script to create these fields in a new Geodatabase. Does a script like this exist, before we write it from scratch?  Unfortunately the ArcGIS Diagrammer doesn't seem to support field re-ordering.  Are there any scripts or hacks we could use to simplify this process?
Order of products of elements in a finite Abelian group We want to show that if $a,b\in G$ where $G$ is a finite Abelian group, we have  $\operatorname{LCM}(|a|,|b|) = |ab|$ given that $ab \neq e$.   How I approached this question was by saying let $\operatorname{LCM}(|a|,|b|) = L$. Then if we show that $L$ divides $|ab|$ and $|ab|$ divides $L$ then $|ab| = L$. Showing that $|ab|$ divides $L$ was fine. But then I am having trouble with the second part that is showing $L$ divides $|ab|$. For this, so far I have:  Consider $(ab)^{|ab|} = e = a^{|ab|}b^{|ab|} $  since we know $a \neq b^{-1}$ by assumption then we can conclude that $|a|$ divides $|ab|$ and $|b|$ divides $|ab|$. We know that $L = \frac{|a||b|}{\operatorname{gcd}(|a|,|b|)}$ from here can we conclude that $L$ divides $|ab|$? The basic 6T structure used for storing data is same as one used in "Positive Feedback Differential Voltage Sense Amplifier", then how come while the data is stored in SRAM memory cell it doesn't get amplified? Change System Language Solaris 8 I have Solaris 8 OS installed in French.  Is it possible to switch from French to English without reinstalling the OS ? If yes how ?  When locale -a i have this :  POSIX common en_US.UTF-8 C iso_8859_1 en_CA en_CA.ISO8859-1 en_US en_US.ISO8859-1 en_US.ISO8859-15 en_US.ISO8859-15@euro fr_CA fr_CA.ISO8859-1 iso_8859_15 th th_TH th_TH.TIS620   Even when I try to edit /etc/default/init with :  LANG=en_US.ISO8859-15 LC_COLLATE=en_US.ISO8859-15 LC_CTYPE=en_US.ISO8859-15 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.ISO8859-15 LC_MONETARY=en_US.ISO8859-15 LC_NUMERIC=en_US.ISO8859-15 LC_TIME=en_US.ISO8859-15 LC_ALL=en_US.ISO8859-15   and reboot : nothing happens.  To verify the result i always use date and when i reboot : i also have the date in french.  P.S : I have to do this configuration in a computer which isn't here in my office, so i have to this manipulation in a an another computer here in my office and if it works, i'll do it to the other computer.  So the computer here is configured in English and i have to switch it to French. Here is the content of my ~./dt :  C                     errorlog              sessionlogs Desktop               errorlog.old          sessions Trash                 errorlog.older        simulateur.dtwmrc appconfig             help                  startlog appmanager            icons                 startlog.old asr.dtwmrc            outils.dtwmrc         startlog.older bin                   palettes              tmp bookmarks             sdtfonts              types dtwmrc                sdtpcaction.conf      wsmenu en_US.ISO8859-15      sdtpcaction.conf.bak   Thanks If $(X,\|\cdot\|)$ is a normed linear space, then how to show any ball $B(x,r)$ is convex? I know that if $x,y\in A\subset V$ then $[x,y]\subset A$, where $A$ is a convex subset of vector space $V$ and $[x,y]=\{(1-t)x+ty\mid 0\leq t \leq 1\}$. Please give me some hint.  I tried the following:  Claim. $[a,b] \subset B(x,r)$ Let $a,b \in B(x,r).$ Then I get $\|x-a\|&lt;r$ and $\|x-b\|&lt;r$.  Is it right? Will grammar errors become correct after enough people use them for enough time? First let me state the obvious—based on my own experience—that hordes of people are confused about certain basic grammar principles. For example, I so often see mistakes in choosing the pronoun to use with direct objects, especially when introduced by and with another person, as in "Joe talked about the book with Anna and [I/me]." Another one is the near 100% usage of "lay" instead of "lie" (and "laid" instead of "lay") nowadays, even in published sci-fi books that most certainly had professional editors proofread them.  Do you see these kinds of changes as predictors of the future? Will they become correct after enough people have used them long enough?  Both of these problems drive me bonkers, and I fight my own little battle against them when possible.  I know that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They're technically history books. But grammar and style books seem less so, to me. Those seem as though they ought to be prescriptive in order to reduce the erosion of structured and meaningful language.  In this tension between "what people are doing" and "what people should be doing," are we doomed to forever bear these errors just because too many people don't know the proper way? Is it worth fighting against them? Do I capitulate to the people who are quick to accept any mass public usage as a fait accompli?  Update  I don't imagine for a second that my own writing is error free. The difference with me is that when I do learn I have something wrong in my mind, I immediately change once I clearly understand it.  I also am not imagining that language is static or ignorant that today's correctness is all too often yesterday's error. The whole point of my question here, then, is: is there value in slowing the change, and if so, how is that done and how effectively?  Another way to look at what I'm trying to ask is that in a way I am hoping to define the limits of pedantry. If being pedantic is slavish adherence to outdated rules in the face of actual and foregone changed reality, then when do we conclude that a change is a foregone conclusion?  Poking fun at my own errors to highlight supposed pedantry on my part is to miss everything I am trying to say.    Update 2  It may not be an easy question, but since language change actually does or does not happen, and every person acts with more or less intention in regards to language change, there must be an answer. What I wanted to explore is the value in efforts to teach the "proper way" vs. the opposite end of the spectrum where any new usage is not just accepted but welcome or even sought out. You know, I'm reminded of something: the conservative/liberal scale:     |------+------+------+------+------+------| radical              moderate             radical liberal                                 conservative   The funny thing about those at the ends of the spectrum is that they both want things to change. The radical liberal wants language to change to something new quickly, just for the sake of newness or evolution or some other not-necessarily-realistic ideal. Similarly, the radical conservative wants things to change just as much, but back to the way it used to be, just for the sake of sameness or continuity or some other just-as-not-necessarily-realistic ideal.  I'm not particularly asking where we should be on this scale as that's purely subjective. I'm trying to ask about something purely practical and real-world: what is actually effective? Is language change inevitable, and how fast? Are efforts to reduce its rapid morphing either effective or worthwhile in any measure? All these things considered, what position with respect to language evolution is livable, practical, and sensible?  Feel free to edit my grammar. No comment necessary.  Update 3  Something that may be of interest to both my supporters and detractors: . I enjoyed it. I don't disagree with him, but I am not sure I am wholehearted in this lack of disagreement. Regionalism or just bad English? I've encountered a particular type of writing occasionally and it being, derp, in writing, it's hard to tell whether there's an accent behind it. The English used seems to me to be simply incorrect, but I can't help but feel that the following features are part of a dialect or a regional style of English. One of the most glaring (and grating) features is the substitution of &quot;saw&quot; with &quot;seen&quot;.  He seen him at the shop the other day. I seen that you were looking for... etc.  The use of &quot;away (to)&quot; is also peculiar, if not incorrect.  He was away to open the door when... He was away to get what he had asked for. etc.  I haven't come across these forms very often, and even then it was accompanied by otherwise mostly correct English, which is what makes me wonder what the hell. This is more intellectual curiosity than anything else. Helpless after exhausting daily limit for reviewing Suggested Edits I have faced this problem earlier. But today I got to face this problem twice in a span of couple of minutes.. I have unfortunately finished my daily quota of reviewing Suggested Edits. But I want to further edit a post for which an edit has already been suggested by another user having less than 2000 Reputation.  I come across a post and it says that an edit has already been suggested which is pending for Review:   I click on edit (1) and a pop-up of Suggested Edit appears:    However, the problem is this Suggested Edit doesn't thoroughly deal with the post. It just fixes some capitalization and nothing else — no grammar fixes, no sentence restructuring to make it more clear, no code formatting, no dividing it into lists, etc. — in short, perfect candidate to be rejected. (The image for the suggested-edit I have uploaded didn't have those problems - however, there were those problems in the edits that I encountered earlier.) The problem before me is that I am helpless. I can't approve, reject or improve the edit since I have already gone past my daily quota of Reviewing them. Neither can I make the edits to the post since this suggested edit is pending review. I am completely helpless!! Whats the opinion of the community in this matter?  Should we (those with more than 2000 Rep) be able to edit them? Don't count it in our Review Progress obviously - not sure what should be done with the suggested edit already proposed.  Or, Let it be, someone else would come and edit them and other Reviewers would deal with the Suggested Edit appropriately.  Or, Something else.    Note: This might not be much of a problem for Stack Overflow since the Review Queue is very busy here. However, this is a bit of a problem for smaller sites. So, treat it as a question posted at Meta.SE and not so much at Meta.SO.  Dirty Hack: Ah... found a dirty hack to work around this situation. However, this shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary. Credit goes to  in . To edit a post enter this link in your browser: http://${site_url}/posts/${post_id}/edit. So, to edit this particular post one would enter: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/171129/edit. I repeat, the hack shouldn't be used unless necessary. Story about last 2 men on Earth. One very evil, and the other very ethical How does electron move around nucleus? I need to get a nice picture about how electron moves around nucleus? I find concept of probability and orbitals quite difficult to understand? Cancelled cut and paste, what happens? boolean variable values in PHP to javascript implementation Using the Limit definition to find the derivative of $e^x$ I was wondering how we could use the limit definition   $$ \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}$$  to find the derivative of $e^x$, I get to a point where I do not know how to simplify the indeterminate $\frac{0}{0}$. Below is what I have already done  $$\begin{align} &amp;\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h} \\ &amp;\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{e^{x+h}-e^x}{h} \\ &amp;\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{e^x (e^h-1)}{h} \\ &amp;e^x \cdot \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{e^h-1}{h} \end{align}$$  Where can I go from here? Because, the $\lim$ portion reduces to indeterminate when $0$ is subbed into $h$. Converting from DMS to DD using Python in Field Calculator? I need to convert lat/long that is expressed as degrees, minutes, and seconds in the data into decimal degrees. For example, in the data, they are listed as N335042.06 in the Latitude column, and W86031.04 in the Longitude column. I have done this problem before where I created a script which converted DMS to DD, and vice-versa, so I guess I could use bits from that. But the problem I'm having is how to ignore (for lack of a better word) the 'N' and 'W' in the data? Can I skip them? And DMS are listed all together without any symbols or spaces.  Can I use len(), range(), split() to specify what part to read from the value? For example, can do the following?  N335042.06 where, 33 = degrees 50 = minutes 42.06 = seconds ...?  I came across  ESRI article, but it's in VB. Will probably use it as a reference but some of the terminology/syntax is different from Python.  Final code that works!   # Pre-logic def latDD(x):   D = int(x[1:3])   M = int(x[3:5])   S = float(x[5:])   DD = D + float(M)/60 + float(S)/3600   return DD  # Expression latDD(!Latitude!) TP-Link Archer T3U Plus USB adapter Cannot make this wireless adapter work on Ubuntu 20.04... please help. I've tried this:  and now lsusb sees the device, but still doesn't work. lsusb: Bus 002 Device 006: ID 2357:0138 TP-Link 802.11ac NIC uname -r: 5.4.0-39-generic Edit: It works on my other computer with Ubuntu 18.04 using T2U Plus driver from here:  But it does not work with Ubuntu 20.04... sudo modprobe 88x2bu: Gives nothing. modinfo 88x2bu | grep -e version -e 0138 : version:        v5.6.1_30362.20181109_COEX20180928-6a6a srcversion:     9C5282368F93050B7206C8D parm:           rtw_chip_version:int  dmesg | grep 88x2 : [ 8087.334869] 88x2bu: loading out-of-tree module taints kernel. [ 8087.336610] 88x2bu: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel [ 8087.341389] usbcore: registered new interface driver rtl88x2bu Change Folder Permissions Narrow-phase collision detection algorithms Why does PGFplots not recognize my expression? Why does the Euclidean algorithm work for polynomials? What is the proof? Difference between == and === in JavaScript VHDL Transition Function