Glucose to Glucose-6-phosphate
Which hydroxyl from either the phosphate or the glycerol is taken during synthesis of a phospholipid head?
I'm writing a script and I would like to pass the results from bc into a variable. I've declared 2 variables (var1 and var2) and have given them values.  In my script I want to pass the results from bc into another variable say var3 so that I can work with var3 for other calculations.  So far I have been able write the result to a file which is not what I'm looking for and also I've been able to echo the result in the terminal but I just want to pass the result to a variable at moment so that I can work with that variable.  echo "scale=2;$var1/var2" | bc Solving quadratic equations in modular arithmetic Is there a general way to solve quadratic equations modulo n? I know how to use Legendre and Jacobi symbols to tell me if there's a solution, but I don't know how to get a solution without resorting to guesswork. Some examples of my problems:  $x^2 = 8$ mod 2009 $x^2 + 3x + 1 = 0$ mod 13  Thanks How can I automate the workflow for producing multiple versions of a document? Say you have two versions of the same LaTeX document.    For instance, you have one version of your lecture slides for actually delivering a lecture: as you're really not a big fan of the "wall of text", this version would be parsimonious in terms of text content, allowing the audience to listen to what you're talking  about instead of reading the slides, and giving graphical content centre stage.  Another version of those slides, made available to the audience after the lecture, for self-study, would be more self-contained and include a summary of what you said during that lecture along with the graphical content mentioned above.  Consider that you can toggle between the two versions by either changing a class option or by changing the value of some dedicated counter in your input file; something relatively simple to do "by hand".  To produce two different versions of the same document, my current workflow is   "manually" compile the first version, change the filename of the output produced (in order to prevent overwriting in step 4) make appropriate changes in my input file to switch to the second version, "manually" compile the second version.   However, this workflow is tedious and error-prone, especially when the number of different versions increases. I would like to automate it as much as possible. Is there a way to batch compile all the versions of my document, each getting a different output filename?  I guess that would involve modifying the input file at the command line (I'm on Mac OS X), but I don't know how to do that.  Do you have an automated workflow for compiling multiple versions of the same document? How do you do it?  Edit: I figured it out using  and  on , of which my question is a duplicate. Email from IOS with attachments larger than 7.5Mb gets stuck in outbox and constantly tries to resend. Costs us hundreds in data fees tarring in parallel An Oceanographer friend at work needs to back up many months worth of data.  She is overwhelmed so I volunteered to do it.  There are hundreds of directories to be backed up and we want to tar/bzip them into files with the same name as the directory.  I can do this easy enough serially - but - I wanted to take advantage of the several hundred cores on my work station.  Question:  using find with the -n -P args or GNU Parallel, how do I tar/bzip the directories, using as many cores as possible while naming the end product:  origonalDirName.tar.bz2?  I have used find to bunzip 100 files simultaneously and it was VERY fast - so this is the way to approach the problem though I do not know how to get each filename to be that of each directory. Brightness fn key shortcut doesn't work on ASUS laptop The brightness shortcuts via fn key don't work.  I tried each solution from . After editing /etc/default/grub file I rebooted.  GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="acpi_osi=Linux" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="acpi_backlight=vendor" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="acpi_osi=linux acpi_backlight=vendor" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="acpi_osi_Linux"   What other workarounds/solutions are there?  Relevant output:  $ sudo lshw -C display   *-display UNCLAIMED             description: 3D controller        product: GK107M [GeForce GT 750M]        vendor: NVIDIA Corporation        physical id: 0        bus info: pci@0000:01:00.0        version: a1        width: 64 bits        clock: 33MHz        capabilities: pm msi pciexpress bus_master cap_list        configuration: latency=0        resources: memory:f6000000-f6ffffff memory:e0000000-efffffff memory:f0000000-f1ffffff ioport:e000(size=128) memory:f7000000-f707ffff   *-display        description: VGA compatible controller        product: 4th Gen Core Processor Integrated Graphics Controller        vendor: Intel Corporation        physical id: 2        bus info: pci@0000:00:02.0        version: 06        width: 64 bits        clock: 33MHz        capabilities: msi pm vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom        configuration: driver=i915 latency=0        resources: irq:50 memory:f7400000-f77fffff memory:d0000000-dfffffff ioport:f000(size=64) A finite group which has a unique subgroup of order $d$ for each $d\mid n$. In the answer to , I was advised:      Yes you have to download the language pack. And you also have to go here: C:\Program Files (x86)\Origin Games\Dragon Age Inquisition\Data\Win32        In the folder loctext leave only the files en.sb and en.toc present, put the others in a folder named temp.   In the folder locfacefx make a copy of en.sb_DiP_STAGED and en.toc_DiP_STAGED, rename them to en.sb and en.toc. place the other language files into a temp folder   When I started the game the language was changed also into the interface. Take notes on what you have done and keep the original files in case something doesn't work, but for the moment that seem to work."   I have no en.sb_DiP_STAGED and en.toc_DiP_STAGED files in my Origin version of the game. This question isn't so much about how to achieve the effect of making a scene look like it's modelled in miniature, but why tilting the focal plane creates the effect. What is it about photographing miniatures that makes them look like miniatures, and how is this replicated by tilting the focal plane?  I can understand how when photographing a model of a scene, you have a much higher magnification, which leads to a shallower depth of field compared to when capturing the real-sized scene, but how does tilting the focal plane help? Is it just that you have the focal plane tilted relative to the plane that most of your subject is on, so that you can achieve a narrower depth of field for the focal length and aperture, or is there more to it than that? PDF editing within Apex/Visualforce Solving linear congruence (modular inverse or fraction) via gcd Bezout equation Isn't finding the inverse of $a$, that is, $a'$ in $aa'\equiv1\pmod{m}$ equivalent to solving the diophantine equation $aa'-mb=1$, where the unknowns are $a'$ and $b$? I have seem some answers on this site (where the extended Euclidean Algorithm is mentioned mainly) as well as looked up some books but there is no mention of this. Am I going wrong somewhere or is this a correct method of finding modular inverses? Also can't we find the Bézout's coefficients by solving the corresponding diophantine equation instead of using the extended Euclidean Algorithm? How do I see a C/C++ source file after preprocessing in Visual Studio? Why does my apple not weigh 500 tons? Related to this question:   $E=mc^2$ - energy equals mass. So, if an object has gravitational potential energy relative to another object, it should have additional mass to represent that extra energy.  So, if I have an apple in my hand, it should have quite a large amount of gravitational potential energy relative to a black hole at the edge of the observable universe. I did a quick calculation of how much this gravitational potential energy would be (using Newton's Law of Gravitation) and it came out to be the equivalent of around 500 tons (and that's just for one black hole!).  So, why does my apple not weigh a lot more than it appears to?  EDIT: Here's my calculation of the GPE:  Assumptions:   The apple has mass $m_a=0.3 kg$ The black hole has a mass equal to 1000 solar masses, $m_b=2\times10^{33} kg$ Distance between the apple and black hole is 60 billion light years   Obviously $GPE=mgh$ can't be used, because the gravitational acceleration is not constant and varies with distance, so it has to be integrated.  I used Newton's Law of Gravitation to provide the acceleration:  $$ F=\frac{G{m_1}{m_2}}{h^2} $$  A small change in height produces a small change in energy, which can be used to integrate:  $$ \begin{eqnarray*} \delta E&amp;=&amp;F \delta h\\ \int_0^EdE&amp;=&amp;G{m_a}{m_b}\int_1^R\frac{1}{h^2}dh \end{eqnarray*} $$  I'm integrating the force starting at 1m from the center of the black hole, as the force goes to infinity at $h=0$. It's a little crude, but it should provide a conservative estimate.  $$ \begin{eqnarray*} E&amp;=&amp;G{m_a}{m_b}(1-\frac{1}{R})\\ E&amp;\approx&amp; G{m_a}{m_b}\;\;\;\;\;\;(R&gt;&gt;1)\\ G&amp;=&amp;6.673\times 10^{-11}\;\;N(\frac{m}{kg})^2\\ G{m_a}{m_b}&amp;=&amp;4\times 10^{22}\;\;Nm\\ E&amp;=&amp;mc^2\\ \Delta m&amp;=&amp;\frac{4\times 10^{22}}{(3\times 10^8)^2}\\ &amp;\approx&amp;444,000\;\;kg \end{eqnarray*} $$  So, a little short of 500 tons, but still pretty big! KeyboardViewer app is saved from this AppleScript.  on run {input, parameters}     if application "KeyboardViewer" is running then         quit application "KeyboardViewer"     else          activate application "KeyboardViewer"     end if     return input end run   Dock toggle save. Adding shortcut to above, needs some work...   Syntax error Can’t set application "KeyboardViewer" to some object. Access not allowed.  tell application "System Events"     set application "KeyboardViewer" to (keystroke "K" using control down) end tell It is stated as a problem in Spivak's Calculus and I can't wrap my head around it. Fact  The intersection of a closed set $A$ and a compact set $B$ is closed.  Background  I wanted to prove that the intersection of closed and compact sets is compact. There might be other ways, but I am not interested in them for now and am looking to prove the above statement.  Relevant Facts  I don't have much idea what to use. $A^c$ is open. Every cover $\cup_{i\ge1}U_i$ of $B$ contains a subcover $\cup_{i=1}^kU_i$. I might want to prove $A\cap B^c$ is open. Limit points may be another points to consider but I don't get any idea in that direction.  I also don't have that $B$ is closed otherwise it would be trivial.  Some Clarification  I am aware that compact sets are not closed in arbitrary topological spaces. The reason why I was motivated to believe tha intersection of closed and compact set is compact is true is: See Matt E.'s Answer      So if $K$ is compact in an arbitrary topological space (which is just to say that   it is a compact topological space when given its induced topology) and     $L$ is closed then $K \cap L$ is a closed subset of $K$ in its induced topology   Is it true if $A$ and $B$ are not whole spaces?  I would appreciate any hints. What is the la command? I just mistyped ls as la. Without noticing, I ran it:  tim@Hairy:~$ la detection.sh   output-2.jpg  output-4.jpg  output-6.jpg  output-8.jpg Test1.pdf output-1.jpg   output-3.jpg  output-5.jpg  output-7.jpg  output-9.jpg          tim@Hairy:~$ ls detection.sh   output-2.jpg  output-4.jpg  output-6.jpg  output-8.jpg Test1.pdf output-1.jpg   output-3.jpg  output-5.jpg  output-7.jpg  output-9.jpg    What's the difference between ls and la? Op Amps: how do they know whether the supply is split? Most op amps can operate in single and split supply configurations. However, I cannot see how this is possible.  If I connect voltages \$V_\text{SY}^+\$ and \$V_\text{SY}^-\$ to the positive and negative supply pins of a op amp, and \$V_+\$ and \$V_-\$ to the non-inverting and inverting inputs, then the output is (if \$A_\text{OL}\$ is the open loop gain of the op amp): $$V_\text{out}=A_\text{OL}(V_+-V_-)+V_\text{SY}^-\tag{Single-supply}~\text{ }~~\text{ }~~\text{ }~~\text{ }~~\text{ }~~\text{ }$$ The above equation is from personal experience using op amps in single supply (i.e. \$V_\text{SY}^- = \text{GND}, V_\text{SY}^+ &gt; \text{GND}\$).  In split supply, we can use the following diagram from MIT's 6.002 introduction to electronics lecture video:  $$V_\text{out}=A_\text{OL}(V_+-V_-)+(V_\text{SY}^+-V_\text{SY}^-)/2\tag{Split-supply}$$  These two equations, however, are mutually inconsistent: If I take an op amp and hook up a single voltage source between its supply pins, how does the op amp know that the resulting voltage is not split between two sources?   It must know - but how does it know? Can 'home' be an adjective as well as an adverb or a noun? All the dictionaries I've consulted say that 'home' is an adverb and a noun, depending on context. For example:  (1) He went home. [adverb] (2) He is at home. [noun]  Also, there's  that seemingly resolves the issue of why 'home' sometimes should be analyzed as an adverb. But what about this example?  (3) I can find my way home.  Can you also say that home in (3) is an adverb? It seems to me that home in (3) cannot be an adverb, because I think it functions as a complement of the noun way and that my way home as a whole is a noun phrase. Even if we accept John Lawler's analysis in the above quoted answer of considering home &quot;one of those idiomatic locative nouns that are allowed to drop determiners and occasionally even prepositions,&quot; we cannot say home in (3) is an example of &quot;how a noun can be used as an adverb&quot;, because (3) can be analyzed as John Lawler suggests:  (3') I can find my way (to my) home.  Here, to my home is not an adverbial prepositional phrase but an adjectival prepositional phrase that acts as a complement of the noun way. So, to take what John Lawler said and adapt it to (3), &quot;what it is is an [adjectival] prepositional phrase that has been stripped of its prepositions and determiners, leaving only a naked noun to stand for the whole phrase. That's how a noun can be used as an [adjective].&quot; Now, does this mean we should call home a noun, an adverb, or an adjective, depending on context? Holomorphic function has at most countably zeros Let $f$ be holomorphic in a domain $U$, then $f$ has at most countably zeros.  How can I prove this statement? I have seen it in Sheng Gong  explicitly, but without any indications.