I would like to create an empty (objects and data) sandbox with the same license and features than my prod org to test new implementations.  I know that we can use and new dev org. However, this will have more features than our prod org (like connect, service cloud, etc.). We don't want to use a feature that then, is not available in our prod org.  Is there any way to achieve this? Someone already ask this on 2013 (). But three years later something must have changed  Any thoughts?
We want to have a plain empty sandbox - one without any configuration metadata or data from Production.  Is it possible to have such a sandbox?  Please advise.
What is so special about speed of light in vacuum? I will try to be as explanatory as possible with my question. Please also note that I have done my share of googling and I am looking for simple language preferable with some example so that I can get some insight in this subject.  My question is what is so special about $c$? Why only $c$. Its like chicken and egg puzzle for me. Does Einstein reached to $c$ observing light or does he got to light using some number which turned out equal to $c$.   Why is $c$ not relative. If something has zero rest mass like a photon why they only travel at $c$ in vacuum and not with $c+1$ or $c-1$? Why doesn't an Environment texture appear when the world has a Volume Scatter shader? I'm working on lighting a scene in which I need to have both an Environment texture for the background and Volume Scatter for light cones, but when I check the volume section in World setting and choose the Volume Scatter, the environment becomes black background (but the lighting works as I want).  I'm using Blender 2.72  How can this be fixed? Help us test the shiny new "User Activity" page! (Plus a bunch of new features.) Argue by contradiction to show that there is no surjection... from $A$ to $\{0,1\}^A$. When $A$ is any (possibly infinite) set  How does one go about this? Is there a website listing the location of all the Windows 10 lock screens? Windows 10 has an extensive collection of lock screen photos, many of which have  here on Travel.SE.  Is there a website which lists the location of all of these photos? I imagine Microsoft has purchased an official license, so they should have a record about the photographer and the place where the photo was taken. I'm looking for some insight into how Stack Overflow releases are deployed and managed.   What software/tooling is used? What time are releases generally performed? How many and what steps are involved?   I'm assuming it's not too stringent given the light team working on the codebase. But considering the high rate of change, I could see some kind of tooling and automation becoming increasingly relevant, so I'm curious to learn what kind of decisions are being made to deal with the changes in scale and feature set over time.  Is this information available somewhere? Is the question mark misused in affirmative sentences? Saving memoization to disk I'm from Central Pennsylvania, and apparently, we have a strange language construct in this area. I was recently talking about how "my car needs washed" to a friend from NJ, and she told me that my sentence was grammatically incorrect.   I realize she's right, and I realize my options are "my car needs to be washed" or "my car needs washing". But I'm not clear on the precise rule being invoked. How many distinct functions can be defined from set A to B? Let me add or change edit summary during edit window (grace period) How does accepting an answer work? What is the difference between the Bash operators [[ vs [ vs ( vs ((? I am a little bit confused on what do these operators do differently when used in bash (brackets, double brackets, parenthesis and double parenthesis).  [[ , [ , ( , ((   I have seen people use them on if statements like this :  if [[condition]]  if [condition]  if ((condition))  if (condition) Second law of Newton for variable mass systems Frequently I see the expression  $$F = \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt}(mv) = \frac{dm}{dt}v + ma,$$ which can be applied to variable mass systems.  But I'm wondering if this derivation is correct, because the second law of Newton is formulated for point masses.   Furthermore if i change the inertial frame of reference, only $v$ on the right side of the formula $F = \frac{dm}{dt}v+ma$ will change, meaning that $F$ would be dependent of the frame of reference, which (according to me) can't be true.   I realize there exists a formula for varying mass systems, that looks quite familiar to this one, but isn't exactly the same, because the $v$ on the right side is there the relative velocity of mass expulsed/accreted. The derivation of that formula is also rather different from this one.   So my question is: is this formula, that I frequently encounter in syllabi and books, correct? Where lies my mistake. How can I make NON-fluffy pancakes? Every recipe I can find is for "fluffy" pancakes.  I prefer thinner, slightly crispy, (very) slightly chewy, non-fluffy pancakes.  Basically, the less "cake-like" the better.  Apparently I'm the only one, and these are all non-desirable qualities in a pancake, so it is hard to find recipes.  How can I make non-fluffy pancakes?  I will be using a cast-iron pan. How can an uneducated but rational person differentiate between science and religion? I recently found myself unable to respond to the statement "But the big bang theory is just another creation myth!" during a science vs. religion argument. I found it very difficult to explain the difference between the big bang theory and creation myths without going through a crash course in Newtonian and then Relativistic mechanics.   This had me thinking of the following scenario: Consider a person who for various reasons never got a formal education beyond basic reading and writing. He/She doesn't know any science or math, and was never exposed to any scientific reasoning and experiments. She/He is however an open minded, level headed, and rational person (I've met more than one such person myself).   How would such a person differentiate science from religion? As far as he/she is concerned science has the exact same structure as religion:    A hard to understand scripture: Science treatises and journal papers.  An ordained clergy with a high entry barrier: Doctors, professors, scientists, etc... Seemingly arbitrary injunctions against certain behaviors: "Don't smoke", "Don't pollute",.... Various metaphysical (from his/her perspective) claims about the world around us: The big bang, other galaxies, blackholes, quarks,... Organizations which control and oversee doctrine: The FDA, The NIH, The NFS,...   From his/her perspective, all of these characteristics are no different than the way organized religion presents itself as being the source of truths about the world.   In particular if such a person were to heed the advice of the :         Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),   nor upon tradition (paramparā),   nor upon rumor (itikirā),   nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)   nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),   nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),   nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),   nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),   nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),   nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū) Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these   things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise;   undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,"   enter on and abide in them.'      Following the Buddha's advice (ironically himself a religious figure), such a rational but uneducated person would have just as much reason to doubt the various results of scientists as to doubt the dogmas of organized religion.    How would it be possible for such a person to distinguish scientific facts from religious dogma?  How can we convince such a person of the validity of ideas like those of modern cosmology or evolutionary biology, without first having to teach them enough biology and physics to understand those concepts? VAR or VECM for a mix of stationary and nonstationary variables I have 4 time series. One of them is stationary and rest of them are not. I need to find relation between them. I will use AIC to decide lag length.   Should I use VAR or VECM to find relation between them?  Will VAR or VECM give me relation in terms of equation which can be used for forecasting?  Do I need to perform Johansen's test of cointegration?  What good would it do? I've been interested in non-standard analysis recently. I was reading up on it and noticed the following interesting comment on the , right after giving an example of a nonstandard differentiation:     The use of the standard part in the definition of the derivative is a rigorous alternative to the traditional practice of neglecting the square of an infinitesimal quantity... the typical method from Newton through the 19th century would have been simply to discard the $dx^2$ term.   I've never heard anything like this before, and really find it fascinating that Newton's method was to define the relation $dx^2 = 0$. If we actually formalize the above structure by taking $\mathbb{R}$ and adjoining an element $dx^2 = 0$ to it, we get the "dual numbers," isomorphic to the quotient ring $\mathbb{R}[x]/x^2$. I'd seen some things about how this algebra plays into automated differentiation algorithms for some computer software systems, but I've never heard anything about Newton directly working in this algebra. So I have a few questions:   Does anyone have more historical information on the way that Newton performed differentiation, and its relation to the dual numbers? Does anyone know how effectively real analysis can be formalized with the dual numbers? Does the resulting system play nice enough to develop all of the important modern results? If we start with $\mathbb{C}[x]/x^2$ instead, can we likewise develop complex analysis?   Since this idea is so simple, I'm very curious how powerful it is. I'm also curious if it has any major drawbacks too, since I'm not sure why anyone would mess with the foundational baggage involved in defining the hyperreals if this simple 2-dimensional real algebra could really do the trick. Rotation Path Not Shown in Graph Editor I created a couple of LocRot keyframes but the rotation path and keyframes aren't shown in the graph editor (no, they aren't hidden). Follow-up to question: Aut(G) for G = Klein 4-group is isomorphic to $S_3$ This is most likely a lack of understanding of wording on my part. I was considerind the Klein 4-group as the set of four permutations: the identity permutation, and three other permutations of four elements, where each of those is made up of two transposes, (i.e., 1 $\rightarrow$ 2, 2 $\rightarrow$ 1 and 3 $\rightarrow$ 4, 4 $\rightarrow$ 3) taken over the three possible such combinations of four elements.  Here, then, is my question. I am assuming (?) that Aut(G) in this case is the set of permutations of the four elements of the Klein 4-group - or the three non-identity ones for the purpose of showing isomorphic to $S_3$. If this is the case, what does it mean to have a permutation of these three permutations that I mentioned above? As always, thanks for your help.