I have two node types: book, author.  There is a node reference field in book which references a single author.  On a book node, I would like to display a list of the same author's books, which I don't know how.  It seems to me the solution will involve EVA, contextual filter and relationships.  I can list all the author's books in an author node using EVA and contextual filter. But it uses author's node ID, which is in the url. I don't think I can pass the referenced author's Nid in a book's url. Or can I?  I'm only 5 days into drupal, and don't know a thing about relationships, can someone help me get my head around this? thanks in advance!  [D7]
So this is what I'm trying to do in Drupal 6:  Node type A is video, node type B is a person Nodetype A has a reference field where you can enter a reference to any Node from nodetype B  how can I create a block view which will be displayed on nodes from node type b, which will show all the nodes from node type A where the current node from node type B is referenced?
Example sentence:     I love when your dog just lets you sit there to pet them. You don’t necessarily know if they are enjoying it, but they love you enough to just sit there with you for a bit.   Is this correct? We assume the words "you" and "your" refer to the speaker of the sentence, and not to the listener, as second-person usually does. But it also refers to dog owners in general. I have always been curious about this. Can I use extra wire from two separate cables to add a washing machine in a garage? From :  Error propagation It was common to discuss the &quot;error propagation&quot; properties as a selection criterion for a mode of operation. It might be observed, for example, that a one-block error in the transmitted ciphertext would result in a one-block error in the reconstructed plaintext for ECB mode encryption, while in CBC mode such an error would affect two blocks.  I read  similar post before. And I can understand that in CBC decryption, only two blocks are affected due to error propagation (error in 1 block). But, for the same case in CBC encryption, why are still only two blocks affected? It looks like all the following blocks will be affected. Proving that free modules are flat (without appealing projective modules) Suppose $R\neq 0$ is a commutative ring with $1$. Let $M$ be a free $R$-module. I would like to prove that $M$ is a flat $R$-module. Everywhere I have looked (mostly online) this is proved by first proving that every free module is projective, and then proving that every projective module is flat. Unfortunately, Atiyah &amp; Macdonald's "Introduction to Commutative Algebra" (Chapter 2) does not discuss projective modules. But the result that every free module is flat comes very handy in the exercises.   So my question is,     Is it possible to prove that every free module is flat just by   definitions and without appealing to projective modules?   Thanks! How can I convert a vector to a cell array? How is the derivative of $\mbox{Trace}\left\{ X^T A X B\right\}$ with respect to matrix $X$ equal to $AXB + A^TXB^T$?  \begin{align}   \nabla_X \ \textrm{Trace}\left\{ X^T A X B\right\} = AXB + A^TXB^T \end{align}  where $A$ and $B$ matrices are given. Why are imported PDFs blurry in InDesign? How do I pass a function as a parameter to in elisp? I'm trying to pass one method to another in elisp, and then have that method execute it.  Here is an example:  (defun t1 ()   "t1")  (defun t2 ()   "t1")  (defun call-t (t)   ; how do I execute "t"?   (t))  ; How do I pass in method reference? (call-t 't1) Possible Duplicate:             Each post has an indicator which summarises who the post is shared.    What is the difference between these two terms? Should I write summarises or summarizes? Clustering on the output of t-SNE I've got an application where it'd be handy to cluster a noisy dataset before looking for subgroup effects within the clusters.  I first looked at PCA, but it takes ~30 components to get to 90% of the variability, so clustering on just a couple of PC's will throw away a lot of information.    I then tried t-SNE (for the first time), which gives me an odd shape in two dimensions that is very amenable to clustering via k-means.  What's more, running a random forest on the data with the cluster assignment as the outcome shows that the clusters have a fairly sensible interpretation given the context of the problem, in terms of the variables that make up the raw data.  But if I'm going to report on these clusters, how do I describe them?  K-means clusters on principal components reveal individuals who are nearby to one another in terms of the derived variables that comprise X% of the variance in the dataset.  What equivalent statement can be made about t-SNE clusters?  Perhaps something to the effect of:     t-SNE reveals approximate contiguity in an underlying high-dimensional manifold, so clusters on the low-dimensional representation of the high-dimensional space maximize the "likelihood" that contiguous individuals will not be in the same cluster   Can anyone propose a better blurb than that? How to disable Ctrl+Shift+U? I have a question about the pattern "turn &lt;something&gt; on &lt;somebody&gt;" :     Then he allegedly turned the body-building equipment on his 44 year-old wife, identified by sources as Feng Liang, and his elderly mother-in-law, Feng Kun Zaehng,77, the sources said.     I understand the phrase "*turn the gun on &lt;somebody&gt;", am not sure about "turn the equipment on &lt;somebody&gt;".  Could the example be wrong? Are getters and setters poor design? Contradictory advice seen The link here:  shows that $\max(a,b)=\frac{a+b+|a-b|}{2}$.      Is it true that $\max(|a|,|b|)=\frac{1}{2}(|a|+|b|)$? Much effort has been expended on a famous unsolved problem about the .  Not surprisingly, it's called the Riemann hypothesis, which asserts:  $$ \zeta(s) = 0 \Rightarrow \operatorname{Re} s = \frac1 2 \text{ or } \operatorname{Im} s = 0 .$$  Now there are numerical methods for approximating $\zeta(s)$, but as I understand, no one knows any exact values except at even integers, which include the trivial zeroes for which $\operatorname{Im} s = 0 $.  So I've always wondered:  For the rest, how does one prove $\operatorname{Re} s = 1/2$ exactly?  (All I know that seems vaguely useful is the argument principle, which I'm not sure helps here, but I'd be happy to learn about other techniques that aren't too far advanced.)  Edit:  Looking over this again, I found out I missed the closed-form values at .  This doesn't affect the question but seemed worth correcting.  Thanks to the people who contributed. How to indent subsection in AMS TOC I used AMS LaTeX template with gsm-l package to write my teacher's book.   The table of content that produced has the following form:    in which 1, 2, 3.... are sections and 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2,.... are the subsection.   I want to indent the subsection with respect to the section, like this (it's ok without dots, though): Change edit approval threshold to (# approve − # reject ≥ N) Currently, the threshold for approving or rejecting a suggested edit is , whichever is reached first.  This means that, when  or just  edits get approved, it's often with a vote count of something like 1 reject / 2 approve (or 2 reject / 3 approve on SO).  Typically, these edits manage to get one or two very quick approve votes from, um, , after which it's very hard for the slower and more careful reviewers to accumulate enough votes to catch up before the edit is approved.  Conversely, when a valid edit gets wrongly rejected, this very rarely happens unanimously either.  More often, you'll see something like 3 votes to reject / 2 to approve, but that single last vote, no matter how well or poorly considered, is enough to tip the scales.  So I'd like to propose a simple change to the approval / rejection threshold:        Suggested edits should be approved when S = (# of approve votes &minus; # or reject votes) &ge; N, where N = 3 on SO and N = 2 on other sites.   Similarly, suggested edits should be rejected when S &le; &minus;N.      No, this change is not going to magically fix all the problems with suggested edit review.  But I believe that it would be a simple and conservative improvement over the current behavior:   For obviously good or bad edits that get approved / rejected unanimously, this suggestion would not change the current behavior in any way. For edits that get one mistaken or careless reject / approve vote (as happens pretty often), an extra approve / reject vote would be required to balance it.  This would slightly slow the review process for such edits, but not excessively so.  Further, I would argue that these are precisely the kind of edits that deserve that little bit of extra attention to make sure the eventual decision will be correct. Edits that are truly controversial, and for which the reviewer community is nearly exactly 50&ndash;50 split between voting to approve and reject, might stay in the review queue significantly longer (maybe twice as long on average) than under the current system.  However, this is a trade-off for the increased likelihood that the eventual decision will actually reflect the majority opinion among reviewers, rather than mere random chance.  In any case, even if reviewers are exactly 50&ndash;50 split, the  under the proposed scheme is only N&sup2;, i.e. 4 votes for other sites and 9 votes for SO.  Even a slight bias in the voting will further reduce this.  Besides, the longer the suggestion remains in the queue, the more likely it gets that someone will short-circuit the process by casting a binding vote (mod / post owner) or by choosing to improve the edit.     Ps. If it is felt that there's an issue with , a simple further chance to address that could be to make each reject vote count as, say, &minus;2 rather than just &minus;1 approval votes (and change the rejection threshold to S &le; &minus;2 &times; N to compensate).  This still wouldn't help with bad edits getting unanimously approved (which isn't really something that can be fixed, except maybe by slugster's cattle prod), but it would mean that each reject vote would now effectively cancel out two approve votes, titlting the balance for disputed edit suggestions in favor of rejection and making it easier for more careful reviewers to counter the "robo-approvers". Cannot edit post meta fields with rest API I am using python to send POST requests to /wp-json/wp/v2/&lt; post type &gt;/&lt; post id &gt;. This successfully updates standard fields such as title, content etc. However I am unable to make any changes to the custom theme meta fields structured like &quot;post_meta&quot;:{     &quot;meta_1&quot;:[],      .      .      &quot;meta_n&quot;:[] }.  When I make a GET request to the same endpoint, the post meta fields are returned so I don't think this is an issue with the fields not being registered? Thanks What's the most efficient way to get experience? Now that experience does something besides render regions of a server uninhabitable due to  orb lag, what's the most efficient and safe way to get those excellent enchants?  A mob farmer may rank highly, but what about without tons of setup? Find a function value given 2 points Given $f(x)$, which is differentiable at every point such that: $f'(x) \ge -5$ for every $ x \in R$   $f(2) = -13$, $f(9) = -48$  Prove that:$ f(3) = -18$  Now it's quite obvious that $ f(3) = -18$ since that if we know that the lowest value of the derivative is -5, the difference between $f(2)$ and $f(9)$ is $-48-(-13)=-35$  that means that that in the area $[2,9]$, $f'(x)=-5$ right? that's why I told that $f(3) = -18$, but I feel that my proof is insufficient, probably because I'm missing some theorems or such. can someone help me structure this proof into something RIGHT :)?  Thanks a lot!