Output rows in SQL table in one field with comma's
Simulating group_concat MySQL function in Microsoft SQL Server 2005?
How to Disavow Bad Backlinks Automatically? How many passes do you need to wipe/shred your files to make them not undeletable? I want to view the fonts that are installed on my system. Specifically, I want the client-side (fontconfig) fonts, not the old-style X11 bitmap fonts on the server (for which xfontsel does an adequate job). I guess what I'm looking for would be called a font viewer or font gallery. I want to see a bit of sample text for each font, ideally configurable sample text.  Being able to filter by font name, available character sets and other characteristics would be a plus.  A search of packages in Debian wheezy found gnome-font-viewer and kfontview, but they can only display a single font. I'd rather avoid depending on software that isn't widely available, including on the current Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS. Setting DIV width and height in JavaScript How do I bypass restrictions on the length of the PATH variable System Properties      This environment variable is too large. This dialog allows setting values up to 2047 characters long.   I use/have used a lot of software, and my PATH has grown as a result. When I try to add new paths, I get the above message. As a workaround, I'm editing my user path, but prefer not to. I'm looking for a single word, for someone who...   keeps seeing everything that is wrong with everybody else.  never seems to see the good of other people, only the bad things. points at others, as if he forgets he has weaknesses himself. does not brag about himself, he just seems to be dissatisfied with everyone else.   I prefer a word that is as unambiguous and clear-cut as possible. Find the summation of given expression: $\sum_{k=1}^n k^3\binom nk$ I am trying to solve the following question which is Ex3 from Arthur Engel, Problem Solving strategies. Here is the question: $\sum_{k=1}^n k^3 {n \choose k}$ and asks to find the sum. I am sincerely having a hard time trying to figure out how to solve it and get $n^2 (n+3)(2)^{n-3}$. I would really appreciate if someone could show the step-by-step process. Thank you! I have a long running BASH script that I am running under CYGWIN on Windows.  I would like to limit the script to run for 30 seconds, and automatically terminate if it exceeds this limit. Ideally, I'd like to be able to do this to any command.  For example:  sh-3.2$ limittime -t 30 'myscript.sh'   or   sh-3.2$ limittime -t 30 'grep func *.c'   Under cygwin the ulimit command doesn't seem to work.   I am open to any ideas. How does order-preserving encryption work? Order-preserving encryption (OPE) is, apparently, a method of encrypting data so that it's possible to make efficient inequality comparisons on the encrypted items without decrypting them.  I've been coming across this term in various places (including ) lately, but I have no idea how such encryption schemes are supposed to work.  Any obvious methods I can think of to allow such comparisons on encrypted data would result in catastrophic security failure.  Certainly, I assume that OPE must involve some kind of security tradeoff compared to traditional encryption, but given that it seems to be actively  and , it seems that it must be possible to implement in a way that retains at least some level of useful security.  I just don't see how.  Given that  didn't turn up any convenient Wikipedia articles or other popular summaries of OPE, I figured I'd try asking for one here before diving into the academic literature.  (At worst, I may try to answer my own question later, if nobody else beats me to it.)  So, to summarize, my question is: How does order-preserving encryption work, and what security properties does it provide? Calculating $\lim_{x\to0} \left\lfloor\frac{x^2}{\sin x \tan x}\right\rfloor$ Find $$\lim_{x\to0}  \left\lfloor\frac{x^2}{\sin x \tan x}\right\rfloor$$ where $\lfloor\cdot\rfloor$ is greatest integer function   I am a high school teacher. One of my students came up to ask this limit.  For $\lfloor\frac{\sin x}{x}\rfloor$, I have used $\sin x &gt; x$ using increasing decreasing functions.  I tried to prove $x^2 &gt; \sin x \tan x$ using increasing /decreasing  function but I am not getting it. Why does water pouring from a glass sometimes travel down the side of the glass? Please add close flags, duplicate links and review data to the public data dump Let $F$ be a field, let $\omega$ be a primitive $n$th root of unity in an algebraic closure of $F$. If $a$ in $F$ is not an $m$th power in $F(\omega)$ for any $m\gt 1$ that divides $n$, how to show that $x^n -a$ is irreducible over $F$? How to install Ubuntu on a laptop with Windows 10 I want to install Ubuntu and remove Windows 10 , but when you restart the PC does not read the Ubuntu installer that is on a bootable USB. How do we know what type of gauge field to add to a theory? I've been watching  and in one lecture, he discusses a very simple gauge theory.  We have a complex scalar field $\phi(x)$ with Lagrangian  $$\mathscr{L} = \partial_\mu \phi^* \partial^\mu \phi - V(\phi^* \phi)$$  and we want to do the gauge transformation $\phi(x) \to e^{i\theta(x)} \phi(x)$.  But the derivative term in the Lagrangian is not invariant if $\theta$ varies from place to place, so we add a new vector field $A_\mu$, and define it to transform like $$A_\mu \to A_\mu + \partial_\mu \theta$$ under the gauge transformation.  Then we change the Lagrangian to use covariant derivatives $D_\mu = \partial_\mu + iA_\mu$ instead of ordinary ones; now when the gauge transform is done all the derivatives of $\theta$ cancel out, and the result is invariant.  My question is: was there any freedom in choosing to add a vector field, with that specific gauge transformation law?  Are there any other ways we could get gauge invariance here—by using a different transformation law, or with a different type of field (say, a scalar, tensor, or spinor) with some other transformation law?  More generally, how can we tell what type of field is needed and what its gauge transformation law should be, to get some particular Lagrangian to be invariant under some particular gauge transformation? Why are Grothendieck's and Hartshorne's definitions of quasi-coherence equivalent? Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry defines an $\mathcal O_X$-module $\mathscr F$ to be quasi-coherent if there is an open affine cover $(U_i=\operatorname{Spec} A_i)_{i\in\mathcal I}$ of $X$ such that each $\mathscr F\rvert_{U_i}$ is isomorphic to the sheaf of modules $\widetilde{M_i}$ associated to some $A_i$-module $M_i$. It is later proved that this is equivalent to the statement that for any open affine $U=\operatorname{Spec} A\subseteq X$, there exists an $A$-module $M$ with $\mathscr F\rvert_U\cong\widetilde M$.  On the other hand, Grothendieck's Éléments de Géométrie Algébrique defines $\mathscr F$ to be quasi-coherent if every point $x\in X$ admits an open neighborhood $U\subseteq X$ such that $\mathscr F\rvert_U$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of a morphism of free $\mathcal O_U$-modules.  Now I wonder how those definitions are equal. I tried proving it by myself, but both directions seem quite nontrivial to me... Any hints? How does the loopback interface work Hamiltonian Cycle Problem At the moment I'm trying to prove the statement:     $K_n$ is an edge disjoint union of Hamiltonian cycles when $n$ is odd.   ($K_n$ is the complete graph with $n$ vertices)  So far, I think I've come up with a proof. We know the total number of edges in $K_n$ is $n(n-1)/2$ (or $n \choose 2$) and we can split our graph into individual Hamiltonian cycles of degree 2.   We also know that for n vertices all having degree 2, there must consequently be $n$ edges. Thus we write $n(n-1)/2 = n + n + ... n$ (here I'm just splitting $K_n$'s edges into some number of distinct Hamiltonian paths) and the deduction that $n$ must be odd follows easily.  However, the assumption I made - that we can always split $K_n$ into Hamiltonian paths of degree 2 if $K_n$ can be written as a disjoint union described above - I'm having trouble proving. I've only relied on trying different values for $n$ trials and it hasn't faltered yet. So, I'm asking:     If it is true, how do you prove that if $K_n$ can be split into distinct Hamiltonian cycles, it can be split in such a way that each Hamiltonian cycle is of degree 2? When needing to ask a professor about something important and potentially delicate, what is an appropriate way to phrase the question or write the email?  Examples include:   Requesting a recommendation letter Asking for exceptions to policy (e.g., ignoring a course prerequisite, rescheduling an exam) Asking if you can do research with them, join a group, get into a program Scheduling a meeting, exam, or defense Letting them know about a change of plans Letting them know about a life event affecting your work or studies (e.g., wedding, funeral, sickness, vacation) Is there anything that is totally random? When I say totally random, I mean absolutely random, not pseudorandom. If I want to say "totally random" numbers such as 1,26,17,4,1 and 27, although I see them to be totally random, they aren't. These are numbers that I think are influenced by my childhood, ideology and everything that I've seen. So, what do you think? Is there anything completely random?