I have this sample bash command:  FILE='/tmp/1.txt' echo "file: $FILE"   and the output is:  file:   Why the output doesn't contain defined earlier variable FILE?
One of my coworkers has provided me with a Bash syntax that I am unfamiliar with.  My Google foo has failed me on figuring out what it does and why/when I should use it.    The command that he sent me was of this form:  someVariable=something command   Initially, I thought that this was equivalent to the following:   someVariable=something ; command   Or  someVariable=something  command   But this doesn't appear to the be case.  Examples:   [Jan-03 11:26][~]$ # Look at the environment variable BAZ. It is currently empty [Jan-03 11:26][~]$ echo $BAZ  [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ # Try running a command of the same format     [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ BAZ=jake echo $BAZ  [Jan-03 11:27][~]$     [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ # Now, echo BAZ again. It is still empty:     [Jan-03 11:27][~]$ echo $BAZ  [Jan-03 11:27][~]$     [Jan-03 11:28][~]$     [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ # If we add a semi-colon to the command, we get dramatically different results: [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ BAZ=jake ; echo $BAZ jake [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ [Jan-03 11:28][~]$ # And we can see that the variable is actually set: [Jan-03 11:29][~]$ echo $BAZ jake [Jan-03 11:29][~]$   What does this syntax do?  What happens to the variable that has been set?  Why does this work?
e.g., I've got files I want to send by sendmail but the receiving mailbox (for posting pictures to my blog) will not accept uuencode files a la   $uuencode file | sendmail user@domain  I'm guessing it'll accept MIME though. So what command can I use instead? Let $\kappa, \lambda,\theta$ be infinite cardinals of $M$ where $M$ is a transitive model of ZFC. Let $\mathcal{P}=Fn(\kappa\times \omega,2)$ (finite functions from $\kappa\times \omega$ to 2) and G is a (M,P)-generic set. I want to show $(\lambda^\theta)^{M[G]}=(max(\kappa,\lambda)^\theta)^M$. One direction is easy $(\lambda^\theta)^M \leq (\lambda^\theta)^{M[G]}$ and $(\kappa^\theta)^M\leq (\kappa^\theta)^{M[G]}\leq ((2^\omega)^\theta)^{M[G]}=(2^\theta)^{M[G]}\leq (\lambda^\theta)^{M[G]}$ where $(\kappa \leq 2^\omega)^{M[G]}$ is by the forcing construction. But now I am not quite sure how to get the other direction. Any thoughts? If rest mass does not change with $v$ then why is infinite energy required to accelerate an object to the speed of light? I know that as the velocity increases, the mass of the object also increases so it becomes tougher and tougher to move the object which ultimately leads to a requirement of infinite energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light. But I have a doubt.  As far as I know only the observable mass (Relativistic mass) increases but not the Proper Mass or Intrinsic Mass, right? The actual mass of the object will remain the same. So if the actual mass ($m_0)$ remains the same and only the observable mass increases, why is more and more energy required? I know that even if the object exceeds the speed of light, we will not be able to say that it is moving faster than the speed of light but is it possible to make it move faster than light?  If rest mass does not change with $v$ then why is infinite energy required to accelerate an object to the speed of light?  I quote Igor Ivanov (a stackexchange user from this question ) to give an insight into my question.     The mass (the true mass which physicists actually deal with when they calculate something concerning relativistic particles) does not change with velocity. The mass (the true mass!) is an intrinsic property of a body, and it does not depends on the observer's frame of reference. I strongly suggest to  popular article by Lev Okun, where he calls the concept of relativistic mass a "pedagogical virus".   EDIT  After reading the answers I have a doubt.  SO can I say that only the overall energy of the system increases while the mass remains constant? But then if mass remains constant, then why is more and more energy gradually required? I mean there should be a reason for that requirement of infinite energy. How do I insert a tie (~, non-breaking space, tilde) under expl3 syntax? How does the Eco-Cooler air conditioner really work? describes a device for developing countries which apparently cools the air by 5 °C without electricity. According to , it works by lowering the pressure to drag in the ambient air. Wouldn't the ambient air be at the same temperature?  Does the constriction compress the air and temporarily increase the pressure and so temperature, which then dissipates heat because it is hotter than surroundings; then after passing the constriction, the pressure returns to almost ambient but the temperature drops to below ambient?  How does the Eco-Cooler air conditioner actually work, if at all? Short expression to convey "but consider the source" Irreducibility check for polynomials not satisfying Eisenstein Criterion. My Question is to check Irreducibility for polynomials not satisfying Eisenstein Criterion.  As an Illustration, to check whether $x^{p-1}+.....+x+1$ for p a prime is irreducible or not, we replaced $x$ by $x+1$ and by using Eisenstein's Criterion for the resulting polynomial we conclude that resulting polynomial is irreducible and so is the original polynomial.  In general, for a given irreducible polynomial $f(x)$ with coefficients in a known U.F.D, is there some element $a$ such that we can apply Eisenstein's criterion to $f(x+a)$?  I am sure there would be no general structure for this but I expect there to be at least some special cases.   Any Reference/suggestion would be appreciated.  Thank You. I know we can use both Present Simple and Present Continuous to describe future actions. But I don't know when to use the correct form.   For example:  We fly to Paris next week.  We are flying to Paris next week.   These sentences both seem correct to me.  Can anyone explain me how to correctly use these tenses? How can I schedule timer to power on and off device? I've been playing the game a while now and have ranked up considerably. I'm wondering if there is any way to change to a different Google account and still keep all of my Pokemon/items etc, as I stupidly used my university gmail account when I first downloaded the app (which will be automatically deleted in September).   Is there any way to transfer my trainer/Pokemon/items etc to a different Google account? I ride regularly in the city with my a few valuables with me. My purse, phone, keys, company ID card etc. I hate having a bag on me while ride so I am looking for a solution to have these few items in a bike bag, but also have them safe if I stop somewhere to run into  a shop or a cafe for 15 minutes.   My original idea was to look for a small saddle or top tube bag that is lockable and also safely locked to the frame, and I can simply leave it there. As it turns out there is no such thing! Or I just did not find it?  My second idea was to search for a similar bag, but which is easily detachable and I can take it with myself as a waist bag for example. Same story, I couldn't find anything like this on the market.  Do you know any bag that could work for me? Or do you have an alternate suggestion for my conundrum?   Thank you very much if you take the time to answer! Ride safe! János Obtain user and kernel time of a running process? Is there way to determine using standard Linux/Unix tools how much a process has spent in User mode and how much waiting for kernel?  In other words, exactly the "user" and "sys" values that you get when using time, but during process runtime?  NOTE: one way is to use WBEM and enumerate Linux_UnixProcess, but I need to use other tool than this; my aim is to verify what WBEM provider tells me, i.e. I need to use different tool. Show that if $ R $ is an integral domain then a polynomial in $ R[X] $ of degree $ d $ can have at most $ d $ roots Show that if $ R $ is an integral domain then a polynomial in $ R[X] $ of degree $ d $ can have at most $ d  $ roots.  Thoughts so far:  I feel like I might be missing something here. If $ R $ is an integral domain, then so is $ R[X] $. The factor theorem gives a correspondence between roots and factors. Clearly (is this clear?) a polynomial of degree $ d $ can't have more than $ d $ irreducible factors. I am trying to write the Euclidean algorithm in the following way:  $A = \lfloor A \div B \rfloor \times B + (\text{remainder of}) \: A \div B $   Now is there any symbol I can use  to say "remainder of A $\div$ B"? I know that in the C programming language there is the operator % for modulus; is that a valid symbol in maths? Can I write A % B? Or is there some other way? What is a "Swap Area"? So I noticed this question has not been asked directly;  What is this "Swap Area" people keep referring to when it comes to installing Ubuntu? I was reviewing the  recently, and it occurred to me that one could allow for only scalar multiplication by the integers and still satisfy all of the requirements of a vector space.   Take for example the set of all ordered pairs of integers. Allow for scalar multiplication over the integers and componentwise vector addition as usual. It seems to me that this is a perfectly well-defined vector space.  The integers do not form a , which begs the question: Is there any reason that the "field" over which a vector space is defined must be a mathematical Field? If so, what is wrong with the vector field I attempted to define above? If not, what are the requirements for the scalars? (For instance, do they have to be a  - Abelian or otherwise?) Recalculate google sheet on demand: I have the following formula in a sheet:  =if(E1="HOLD",,query(Cust_Orders!B6:Z5000,"Select Y,G,I,H,K where H&gt;0  "))   With E1 being a drop down with values HOLD and FETCH  The recalculation when I go to FETCH takes about 13 seconds.  But when it is in HOLD, the query doesn't exceute, and everything goes blank. Not what I want.  I'm trying to avoid recalculating this query every time I make a change in the Cust_Orders range, but keep the old values, as two different pivot tables that are viewed by other people are dependent on it.  Google spreadsheet recalc settings all are 'on change and foo'  Is there a way to do this? Studying the equation $\ln(x)- 1+ x^2=0$ I'm wanting to use Xen Hypervisor to be able to run both Ubuntu 12.04 and Windows 7 at the same time using virtualization. I can find plenty of XCP tutorials but I'm not looking to install the cloud stack, I just want the server confined to my machine.  All I need is a link to a decent tutorial for this purpose. I've read a ton of articles that lead me to believe I'm on the right track, but not enough to feel comfortable getting it right if I just dive in. I'm getting caught up on whether I need to install Ubuntu and then install Xen into it, or do I need to install Xen on a small partition and then leave the rest of the hard drive open for the virtualization... I dunno.  Basically, I need the virtualization of Windows 7 for Adobe Premiere and After Effects (until Lightworks for Linux comes out and I can afford NUKEX). If I didn't need those, I'd be rocking out a straight up Ubuntu machine or just using VirtualBox for my virtualization. However, I need Windows to run as an HVM so it runs like I would expect rather than having the issues I may run into with VirtualBox (video drivers, etc).  So, any suggestions? What lens characteristics are important in star photography? In optimal world I would buy a lens that is good in every way. But I'm on a budget and have to find a balance in quality and price. I'm looking for a lens for star photography, so in my case it will be a wide angle lens with good characteristics for capturing points of light in a dark sky. What would those characteristics be?  So far I've learned about , which seems like a thing to note when comparing different lenses for star photography. It would be quite disappointing if stars turned into long teardrops on the edges of a photograph even when every precaution was taken to make all stars sharp round points of light.  Vignetting would be an example of lens characteristic not so important in this use.  Many characteristics of a lens turn better when aperture is slightly stopped down, but I suppose I'd be wanting to use a lens with wide open aperture when trying to capture the stars in a dark night sky.  I'm not asking for lens recommendations. But, as an example of what kind of lenses I've been looking at, I name  manual focus lens. Its price level is $350'ish in Amazon and seems to run with name Rokinon too. It seems to be reasonably sharp even when wide open - my camera is an APS-C sensor camera.