I have a large spreadsheet with a number of cells containing text that have a "*" character at the end. I would like to find and replace this character and delete it.  solution doesn't seem to work in Excel 2010.
I am trying to find and replace the * (star, or shift+8) character in a bunch of formulas in Excel 2007.  * of course matches the ENTIRE contents of the cell, which is not what I want.  How do I disable this behavior?
Springer llncs TOC not working I can't get the TOC to work. I remember it worked before, but there was something I did (unfortunately I can't remember what it was), and after that the TOC just stopped working.  Here is a part from my document:  \documentclass[deutsch]{llncs}  \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage[labelformat=empty]{caption} \usepackage{subcaption} \captionsetup{compatibility=false}  \bibliographystyle{unsrt}  \pagestyle{headings} \begin{document}  \sffamily  \begin{titlepage}     %Some stuff here \end{titlepage}  \thispagestyle{headings} \tableofcontents \newpage %more stuff here blablabla \section{test} \subsection{test2} \end{document} Is it possible to use the animals that are summoned using Conjure Animals as mounts?  As an example: Summoning Giant Eagles to carry a group up the mountain or over a wall. Use worksheet name as a variable in a lookup Can we modify "Ask question" to automatically suggests tags based on your question content.   So instead that user needs to type "team-foundation-server" or "TFS" or "TeamFoundationServer" he will see list of tags auto-populated with ajax which he (or she) can then select and it will be associated with the question. So basically only thing we need is code which will cross-match question content with list of known tags while user is typing and display results in some nice ajax-enabled list/cloud/whatever UI control. This should be separate control for tags suggestions so user still has option to use standard tag list input to type-in tags.  In this case, instead of three (or more) tag variations we would have only one tag for Team-Foundation-Server. Ought we only form beliefs based on sufficient empirical evidence? Is it possible to install Ubuntu without formatting any partitions? JavaFX accordion with multiple open panes How to add the word "Figure" to the list of figures? how to make a regex string reject a blank field I wrote a simple backup script which back ups my stuff on a remote server, everything is working great but I'd like to have some sort of report like "backup successful or not".  this is my script   # backup CHECK date1=`date +"%d.%m.%y - %H.%M"` host=`hostname` twdate=`date +"%d.%m"` performtw=`ls -la|grep "tw"|grep "$twdate" &gt; tmp1.txt` echo $performtw if cat tmp1.txt|grep "tw" then echo backup successfull printf "tw backup success!" | mail -s "tw backup check $date1 repor$ rm tmp1.txt else echo backup failure printf "sitename backup failure!" | mail -s "site backup check $date1 repor$ rm tmp1.txt fi exit   But this isn't working really well and I ask you if there's some simpler and more powerful way to do it? Basically it just needs to check if file exists with the name starting xyz and was created at date xyz. Use the new helpcenter for the question/answer ban message Paying off student loan or using that money for a downpayment on a house The Wikipedia article on  mentions two methods of sampling "small" polynomials namely uniform sampling and discrete Gaussian sampling. Uniform sampling is clearly the simplest, involving simply uniformly selecting the coefficients from the set of small coefficients, thereby guaranteeing they will be small. However, the articles mention that security proofs rely on discrete Gaussian sampling.  However, I have a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around    Why discrete Gaussian sampling would be better than uniform, security-wise?   I mean, usually uniform is preferable - it maximizes the entropy/information in each sample, making the outcome more unpredictable. I could understand it if the Gaussian sampling technique would somehow serve to avoid (at least with high probability) "weak" parts of the space of outcomes but I have found no information/justification that this is the case.  Another reason I can see why discrete Gaussian might be better is that there is, after all, a chance (albeit a small one) one would select a non-small coefficient, so the space of outcomes is actually larger. However, given that this probability of hitting this extra space is (by design) quite small but also that one would likely immediately reject such a sample (because the algorithm calls for a small polynomial), this seems to be irrelevant.  It is not because I am against discrete Gaussian sampling I just want to understand why it is more secure. Also, I want to understand if it really IS more secure or it is simply easier to prove security in that model. I would actually consider that very interesting if it is the case because it raises the question of why is it easier to prove the security under conditions that are intuitively worse (i.e. discrete Gaussian vs the intuitively better uniform case)? If it is so intuitively clear that uniform sampling is better, surely it must be possible to transform that intuition into a security proof of RWE also under uniform sampling. Otherwise, I would fear the intuition must with high likelihood be wrong or at least dubious. Do electrical devices "take what they need" One concept of electronics I have a hard time understanding is if things like motors, actuators, solenoids etc. use as much power as they need or what you give them.   If a motor needs 12 volts and 500ma and I supply it with 12 volts and 3000ma will it only consume 500ma? Also, if I supply it with 15volts and 500ma what will happen?   It seems logical that an LED and a DC motor are way different when it comes to requiring/using electric where as an led has to be completely regulated and (I assume) a DC motor doesn't.   Is my understanding wrong? Travel duration from Earth to a star at 9.8 m/s² acceleration state that "at best" is an idiom. But, what is the grammatical function of "at best" (for example, in the below sentences?)        Their response to the proposal was, at best, cool.   The government's response seems to have been at best confused and at   worst dishonest.   If he drops the course now, at best he’ll get an incomplete, and he could fail.      Thanks $F(x)$ versus $F[x]$ where $F$ is a field Why an abstract class implementing an interface can miss the declaration/implementation of one of the interface's methods? A curious thing happens in Java when you use an abstract class to implement an interface: some of the interface's methods can be completely missing (i.e. neither an abstract declaration or an actual implementation is present), but the compiler does not complain.  For example, given the interface:  public interface IAnything {   void m1();   void m2();   void m3(); }   the following abstract class gets merrily compiled without a warning or an error:  public abstract class AbstractThing implements IAnything {   public void m1() {}   public void m3() {} }   Can you explain why? Why is integration so much harder than differentiation? $1+x+\ldots+x^n$ perfect square Let $p$ be the polynomial $p(x)=1+x+\ldots+x^n$. For which couples $(a, n)\in\mathbb{N}^2$, $p(a)$ is a perfect square? I'm particularly interested in $p(3)$.