I have created a document where some pages have a background color. I would like the pages to have crop marks, using the &quot;showcrop&quot; option of the package geometry (I do not want to use the &quot;crop&quot; package, for some reasons). The following MWE shows that the crop marks are missing in the colored pages. \documentclass{book}  \usepackage{lipsum} \usepackage{xcolor}  \usepackage{geometry} \geometry{paper=a4paper, layoutwidth=170mm, layoutheight=240mm, layoutvoffset= 20mm, layouthoffset= 20mm, showcrop=true}  \begin{document}  \lipsum \newpage \pagecolor{yellow} \lipsum \newpage \nopagecolor \lipsum  \end{document}  Would anyone have any idea what is going on, and how to fix it ? PS : it is not the same question as  : I am not using the crop package !
I use XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.4-0.9998 (TeX Live 2012/W32TeX).  I am using the crop package to add bleed and crop marks to a document. This works fine for pages with white background, but how do I achieve this for pages which have another colour in the bakckground?  I tried the pagecolor package, and see that it somehow extends the pagecolour to around 2 to 3 mm into the bleed but not beyond. How do I make the entire bleed region of the same colour as the page?  \documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage[dvips=false,pdftex=false,vtex=false,paperwidth=138mm,paperheight=216mm]{geometry} \usepackage[noaxes,noinfo,cam,dvips,pdftex,center,width=168mm,height=246mm]{crop} \usepackage{xcolor} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage{blindtext} \begin{document} \pagecolor{orange} \blinddocument \end{document}
How do I do a SELECT * INTO [temp table] FROM [stored procedure]? Not FROM [Table] and without defining [temp table]?  Select all data from BusinessLine into tmpBusLine works fine.  select * into tmpBusLine from BusinessLine   I am trying the same, but using a stored procedure that returns data, is not quite the same.  select * into tmpBusLine from exec getBusinessLineHistory '16 Mar 2009'   Output message:     Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Line 2   Incorrect syntax near the keyword   'exec'.   I have read several examples of creating a temporary table with the same structure as the output stored procedure, which works fine, but it would be nice to not supply any columns. I have the string   a.b.c.d   I want to count the occurrences of '.' in an idiomatic way, preferably a one-liner.  (Previously I had expressed this constraint as "without a loop", in case you're wondering why everyone's trying to answer without using a loop). To avoid printing single letters at varying sizes and measuring how far away I can see it from a distance is there a formula for determining what size font for a particular read distance? Is it better to take the midpoint between the ascender line and x-height or to go purely off of the x-height (since going purely off the ascender line could leave lowercase letters difficult to read)? How does vertical height play into this? Would I need to then figure the hypotenuse distance instead of a straight distance?  For example if I'm shooting for a 20' read distance but the sign is to be placed about 30' up should I use a distance of  35' instead of 20'?  I'm shooting for a 20' read distance for the headline and then possibly a 10' read distance for additional content depending on how it all fits on the active area. The actual period of a pendulum at 90°. Looking for the correct formula Do you have access to any scientific experiment which gives the period of a pendulum when the angle is $90^\circ$:     says $T$ varies to about $18\%$ up to $90^\circ,$ so for a seconds pendulum the complete period would be roughly $2.36.$    I d'like to know the ratio at $90^\circ$ with a good approximation, and the span it can vary in relation to air friction, if the bob  is not massive.  Also, I'd like to know the max. speed of the bob at $P_0$ and how it compares with the speed of same ball sliding without friction on a circular surface, would it be the same?      What I am trying to understand here is rather complex, I'll try to explain:  If the block is placed on an air-track or other frictionless surface, the block would acquire a certain speed, momentum and KE in the opposite direction, right? same amount of momentum is lost by the bob and we can find speed loss.    Isn't the same amount of speed lost by the bob when it is attached to a pendulum?  Is this an important factor or may be the most important factor (more relevant than air friction or friction at the pivot) for the increase of the period when the angle is greater than $30^\circ$?  I figured out that this factor can account for about one third of the $18\%$ increase, can you give a more accurate value?   What I am suggesting is that this (loss of horizontal momentum, which is made clear when the bob is not attached to a rod but slides on a block) is the most important factor that makes the actual period increase when the starting point deviates on the vertical direction. Which groups have precisely two automorphisms Which groups $G$ have precisely two automorphisms, i.e., precisely one non-trivial automorphism?  Examples: $G= C_3, \mathbf{Z},\ldots$.  I think $G$ has to be abelian. In fact, we have $ \vert G\vert \geq 3$. Therefore, if $G$ is not abelian, we have at least two non-trivial inner automorphisms.  If we can show that $G$ is cyclic the above examples are all of them. Finite multiplicative group of matrices with sum of traces equal to zero. Let  $G=\{M_1,M_2,...,M_k\}$ be a finite set such that $ M_i\in M_n(\mathbb R)$ and $(G,\;\cdot\:)$ is a group with matrix multiplication. If $\sum _{i=1}^k \operatorname{tr} (M_i)=0$ then how to prove $\sum _{i=1}^k M_i=0$ ? Generating samples from singular Gaussian distribution Let random vector $x = (x_1,...,x_n)$ follow multivariate normal distribution with mean $m$ and covariance matrix $S$. If $S$ is symmetric and positive definite (which is the usual case) then one can generate random samples from $x$ by first sampling indepently $r_1,...,r_n$ from standard normal and then using formula $m + Lr$, where $L$ is the Cholesky lower factor so that $S=LL^T$ and $r = (r_1,...,r_n)^T$.  What about if one wants samples from singular Gaussian i.e. $S$ is still symmetric but not more positive definite (only positive semi-definite). We can assume also that the variances (diagonal elements of $S$) are strictly positive. Then some elements of $x$ must have linear relationship and the distribution actually lies in lower dimensional space with dimension $&lt;n$, right?  It is obvious that if e.g. $n=2, m = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}, S = \begin{bmatrix} 1 &amp; 1 \\ 1 &amp; 1\end{bmatrix}$ then one can generate $x_1 \sim N(0,1)$ and set $x_2=x_1$ since they are fully correlated. However, is there any good methods for generating samples for general case $n&gt;2$? I guess one needs first to be able identify the lower dimensional subspace, then move to that space where one will have valid covariance matrix, then sample from it and finally deduce the values for the linearly dependent variables from this lower-dimensional sample. But what is the best way to that in practice? Can someone point me to books or articles that deal with the topic; I could not find one. Why are there two ticker symbols for Google — GOOGL and GOOG?  They seem to be mostly identical, but their market values are different: currently, 551.64 for  and 548.79 for . Product of manifolds & orientability I'm studying orientability of manifolds currently and I'm having trouble to prove the following: $M\times N$ is orientable iff $M$ and $N$ are orientable.   I am able to prove that the product is orientable if components are orientable (chart is $\{(U_\alpha\times V_{\beta},\phi_\alpha\times \psi_\beta):(\alpha,\beta)\in A\times B \}$, and $\det J=\det J_1 \det J_2&gt;0$ by Cauchy-Binet's theorem), but I don't know how to prove the other direction.   So why this holds: if $M\times N$ is orientable, then $M$ and $N$ are orientable?  Thanks in advance. How to change programmatically exposed filters in views I have a page view with exposed filters. One of the filters is term vocabulary, and that's dropdown list, user can select only one category (term).   I want to set programmatically one term from dropdown list when I came from specific URL. I tried with views_query_alter where $category is tid.    $set_exposed_input  = array();  $set_exposed_input['field_category_tid'] = $category;   if ($set_exposed_input) {     $view-&gt;set_exposed_input($set_exposed_input);  } What's amazing about these open world games is the freedom I have as a player. If I don't want to follow the main story line for a while, and just explore, I can do that, and the game won't break.  On the other hand I don't particularly like the feeling of having made a significant, bad choice in the game, among the lines of Yeah, that dialog option you selected hours ago? This amazing quest line is now off limits.  If I recall correctly, in Morrowind, I had to progress through a few different guilds' quests in the right order, otherwise it'd have stopped my progress in a few guilds.  As a Skyrim example, it doesn't appear that the very first choice made in Helgen at the very beginning has much significance. If someone told me It's not that significant, you still get to choose sides (or, rather not told me "This is important"), that'd help.  Another example: Based on a question I read here, I should probably make sure that I don't throw away any of the dragon priest masks and need to make sure to collect one during a specific quest. This would be relevant for this topic if I could easily miss it otherwise while doing that question.  This includes accidental problems possibly caused by bugs: It appears .  It doesn't matter too much which of the love triangle guys in Riverwood I support: That's not nearly significant enough.    Are there non-obvious, hidden decision points in the quests and story lines? When playing in a certain area, doing a certain quest, what do I need to make sure to do or not do, to not accidentally prevent me from getting or achieving something significant?  I still want to explore on my own, but want to be aware of which choices are important.  This is somewhat related to . verb or adjective in "The blue page is *stapled* to the red page"? Using cd command in Windows command line, can't navigate to D:\ This may be a silly question, and I think I have looked elsewhere to find the answer...  Might be a path issue, but when I open the command line and type from the C:\&gt;: cd D:\  I cannot get to the D drive.  Even if I type: cd D:\&lt;folder name&gt;  The command.exe will auto-complete the line with the tab key, so it knows where I'm at.  It just doesn't print to screen the result or actually get me there.  This problem exists for the network drives as well. Now, if I use the chdir (cd) command like this: chdir D: or cd d: I get the print out of the D:\ below the command but it still says I'm in the C:\. I feel like I'm missing something simple. How do I change the launcher commands? What are pros and cons for MacPorts, Fink and Homebrew? I'm just migrating from Ubuntu Linux to Mac, and everything is new and I'm re-learning a lot of stuff.  On Linux I had the excellent apt-get to manage software packages. I googled for an alternative on Mac and found about MacPorts, Fink and Homebrew.  I will use this computer primarily to develop Ruby on Rails applications.  So, what are the differences between them? Which are the upsides and downsides? Which one is best maintained and has more packages? Present and future of bots on Stack Exchange There are discussions on Meta already for some time now about the potential usage of bots on Stack Exchange (SE). The earliest I could find goes back to  , but there have been others , .  Here’s an  about having a bot that tries to answer “easy” questions. The scenario is that (almost) duplicate, simple questions are asked time after time, despite SE’s efforts to prevent this by listing related questions at posting time. This is where the bot could be of service: it could quickly retrieve and post an answer from a previous duplicate (or with smarter Artificial Intelligence - AI)  even from elsewhere on the web, like a user manual or a mailing list discussion). I imagine this might save some review time for moderators, and perhaps users would also enjoy not having to answer over and over again to the same question. Besides, answers would be very fast, which should make everyone happy if they are also of good quality.  This idea of “janitor” bots can have more use cases besides answering “easy” questions (see also discussion ), like suggesting missing tags and re-formatting what should have been code blocks, to name a few.  Yet, despite a long time since these discussions, better Machine Learning Classifiers (ML) and AI over the years, and   , it doesn’t seem that any such bots are among us (except maybe ). As part of a research project at the university, I am trying to understand why this is the case.  For this reason I’d like your opinion on the following:   Do you consider a bot “harmful” for the SE communities?   If yes, would you consider the bot harmful even if   it operates in an automatic manner only in limited scenarios (e.g. specific tags) it operates in a semi-automatic manner (namely with the supervision of a moderator who decides for posting or not the answer).  it operates only for a limited amount of time in a small community (e.g. here).   Would you consider it too risky to give a bot a try? Would you accept an answer provided by a bot?   If not, why ? (e.g. you don’t trust replies from machines)  Would you consider useless a “sloppy” answer by a bot, even if it is provided in just a few seconds? Answers may be not perfect, but they may link to other relevant threads that can help the asker to fix the problem without waiting extra time for a human response. Why aren't particles constantly "measured" by the whole universe? Let's say we are doing the double slit experiment with electrons. We get an interference pattern, and if we put detectors at slits, then we get two piles pattern because we measure electrons' positions when going through slits. But an electron interacts with other particles in a lot of different ways, e.g. electric field, gravity. Seems like the whole universe is receiving information about the electron's position. Why is it not the case and the electron goes through slits "unmeasured"?  Bonus question: in real experiments do we face the problem of not "shielding" particles from "measurement" good enough and thus getting a mix of both patterns on the screen? Partitions of $n$ into distinct odd and even parts proof Let $p_\text{odd}(n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into an odd number of parts, and let $p_\text{even}(n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into an even number of parts.  How do I prove that    $|p_\text{even}(n) - p_\text{odd}(n)|$ is equal to the partitions of $n$ into distinct odd parts. Show that the number of partitions of $n$ for which no part appears exactly once is equal to the number of partitions of n for which every part is divisible by 2 or 3. Show that the number of partitions of $n$ for which no part appears more than twice is equal to the number of partitions of $n$ for which no part is divisible by 3. Farm Solution Vs. SandBox Keep items in inventory on death in Minecraft