How to get current element of list by javascript. The element clicked by three dots. Please help. From the Sharepoint list called "Stuff".  And after click on three dots i want to get a ID of element. Please help.
I want to ask how to get id of element which was clicked by right clicking in open menu. I must know ID of this element to show only that history the element what was clicked fom open menu:
I would like to add my bibliography to my presentation in IEEE format. What should I add to my preamble and code.  \documentclass{beamer} \setbeamertemplate{footline}[page number]  \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{booktabs} \begin{document} \section{Reference} \begin{frame} \frametitle{Reference}  \end{frame}   I'm using the same bibTex which I use to make the IEEE paper. How can I enable access to USB devices within VirtualBox guests? I cannot see any USB devices within my VirtualBox guest VMs from my host. How do I enable access for my guest VMs?  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Mixed declaration and code" warning, is it worth addressing? What does // mean in a path? I was working in my terminal, when I misspelled while cd to root (/). Accidentally, I typed // and I got in terminal:  root@weblocalhost://#   When i type pwd, i get response // but when I type ls -s i got same list as in / directory.  When you type more than 2, i.e. /// you get:  root@weblocalhost:/#   Always 1 / except for 2. Is there any difference and what is // for? I think my question relates to a fundamental of 3D modeling that I haven't picked up on yet. It's very simple:  Let's say I have a flat quad. A plane on the XY plane inserted into am empty blender file is a great example. Now let's say I start moving each of the 4 vertices around on in any direction, especially the Z axis.   At this point, there would still be one face, but its extremely unlikely that the face would be planar (I just learned this word). So blender does its best to make sense of what this should look like.  The problem I'm having is that it seems like my quads are always like this, but they never look the way I want. There are edges and seams that look like they are dangling in space, and what tends to happen is that my mesh looks great when viewed from most angles, but if you look at it from just the right angle, you notice the dangling edges or sometimes even some kind of impossible geometry. And so I might try to nudge the problematic vertices around, but this often seems to either make it worse, or just hide the bad geometry until you see it from a different angle.  For me, this always seems to happen whenever I'm trying to move vertices to add roundness to something that is originally square.   There is another question on here about how to actually flatten the quads. That's great, and I might use some of the techniques mentioned there. My question is:   Why does this happen? (Can someone explain this better?) What are some tips and tricks to avoid this situation? What are some tips and tricks to mitigate this situation?   EDIT Here is an illustration:  The overall mesh as viewed from a distance looks decent (for my skill level)    But if you get closer and look from a certain angle...    Super close up:    The "edge" that is pointed to by the arrow is not actually an edge, but some kind of artifact created when blender tries to show the quad. The way the vertices are positioned, it shouldn't actually be possible to see the sliver of the face that I marked in red, since this face is supposed to be around the corner from the edges. The edges should form the silhouette on the right side of my figure.     Here is the side view. Maybe it is the angled topology that skews the face in a funny way?  But I'm not looking for help with this one particular issue, but rather a better understanding of why this happens, and ideas to prevent this in future models. Find remainder of division of $x^3$ by $x^2-x+1$ I am stuck at my exam practice here.      The remainder of the division of $x^3$ by $x^2-x+1$ is ..... and that of $x^{2007}$ by $x^2-x+1$ is .....   I tried the polynomial remainder theorem but I am not sure if I did it correctly.  By factor theorem definition, provided by ,     the remainder of the division of a polynomial $f(x)$ by a linear polynomial  $x-r$ is equal to $f(r)$.   So I attempted to find $r$ by factorizing $x^2-x+1$ first but I got the complex form $x=\frac{1\pm\sqrt{3}i}{2}=r$.   $f(r)$ is then $(\frac{1+\sqrt{3}i}{2})^3$ or $(\frac{1-\sqrt{3}i}{2})^3$ which do not sound right.  However, the answer key provided is $-1$ for the first question and also $-1$ for the second one. Please help. There is some behavior I can't understand in the Unity Desktop.   Open nautilus via. clicking in the launcher onto the home-button Navigate to for example the windows-partition in nautilus Minimize nautilus Click on nautilus in the launcher doesn't open the nautilus with windows-partition, instead it opens a new window with the home folder.   Is there a workaround for this strange behavior?  Regards, Arthur Reading over the Monk I saw that for Martial Arts:     When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action.   This implies that non-monk weapons do not count towards being able to make this single unarmed strike. However, when looking over Flurry of Blows:     Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.   The requirement doesn't seem to be there anymore, and I didn't see where this discrepancy was covered in . This  says that you can use flurry of blows as a bonus action on any form of attack.   So does the limitation really only exist on a single unarmed strike, but you can use whatever attack action you want to trigger Flurry of Blows? Formulae for Catalan's constant. Some years ago, someone had shown me the formula (1). I have searched for its origin and for a proof. I wasn't able to get true origin of this formula but I was able to find out an elementary proof for it.  Since then, I'm interested in different approaches to find more formulae as (1).  What other formulas similar to ($1$) are known?  Two days ago, reading the book of Lewin "Polylogarithms and Associated Functions" I was able to find out formula (2).  $\displaystyle \dfrac{1}{3}C=\int_0^1 \dfrac{1}{x}\arctan\left(\dfrac{x(1-x)}{2-x}\right)dx\tag1$   $\displaystyle \dfrac{2}{5}C=\int_0^1 \dfrac{1}{x}\arctan\left(\dfrac{\sqrt{5}x(1-x)}{1+\sqrt{5}-\sqrt{5}x}\right)dx-\int_0^1 \dfrac{1}{x}\arctan\left(\dfrac{x(1-x)}{3+\sqrt{5}-x}\right)dx\tag2$   $C$ being the Catalan's constant.  I have a proof for both of these formulae.  My approach relies on the following identity:  For all real $x&gt;1$,  $\displaystyle \int_0^1 \dfrac{1}{t} \arctan \left (\dfrac{t(1-t)}{\frac{x+1}{2}-t}\right) dt=\int_1^{\frac{\sqrt{x}+1}{\sqrt{x}-1}}\dfrac{\log(t)}{1+t^2}dt$ Specific system of differential equations I have the following system of equations:  \begin{eqnarray}\frac{dx}{dt} = x(1 - x^2 - y^2) \\ \frac{dy}{dt} = y(4 - x^2 - y^2) \end{eqnarray}  I want to prove that if a solutions starts (at time $t = 0$) in the region   $$ G = \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : x &gt; 0, y &gt; 0 \text{ and } 1 &lt; x^2 + y^2  &lt; 4\} $$  that it remains there for all $t \geq 0$. I have already proven that, from $G$, a solution cannot cross the $x$-axis where $0 &lt; x &lt; 2$ or the $y$-axis where $0 &lt; y &lt; 2$ (since those line segments are orbits), but the pieces of the circles with radius 1 and 2 (where $x &gt; 0, y &gt; 0$) are the lines I haven't done yet. In this question we can focus on just the circle with radius 1 since the proof for the other circle is completely analogous to it.  In my book, there is a similar problem where they show that if a solution crosses a certain line, that solution attains its maximum or minimum value for $x$ and $y$, and then they derive a contradiction. However, in this case, for $n \geq 1$ the $n$-th derivative of $x$ equals 0 on the circle with radius 1. (If the second derivative were negative, $x$ would attain its maximum on the circle, a contradiction since $\frac{dx}{dt} &lt; 0$ in $G$, so $x$ is decreasing.)  I don't see why a solution can't cross the circle at all. On the circle, $\frac{dx}{dt} = 0$ and $\frac{dy}{dt} &gt; 0$, so after crossing the circle, the solution would go back up to $G$.  Is the circle itself an orbit?  EDIT I think I have found the answer. Using polar coordinates, I found $$ \frac{dr}{dt} = r - r^3 + 3r \sin^2(\theta) $$ Now, $$ \frac{dr}{dt} &gt; 0 \Leftrightarrow 0 &lt; r - r^3 + 3r \sin^2(\theta) \leq r - r^3 + 3r = 4r - r^3 $$ since $0 \leq \sin^2(\theta) \leq 1$. Note that $0 &lt; r \leq 1$ satisfies $4r - r^3 &gt; 0$, and thus $\frac{dr}{dt} &gt; 0$. Therefore, if a solution goes from $G$ to the edge of the unit circle, $r$ must, on the edge, either be decreasing or constant (i.e., its derivative is less than or equal to 0), contradicting the fact that the derivative is positive.  Can someone tell me if this is correct? Mount ext4 partition with >4KiB block size I'm attempting to mount a partition from a NAS and the block size is 65536 bytes, this is above my distribution's precompiled kernel memory paging size of 4KiB, so I cannot mount it normally.  Which kernel compilation parameters would I need to change to get a memory paging size large enough?  Would it be possible under the x86-64 architecture?  EDIT: There doesn't seem to be an option for it in make xconfig unless I'm just missing it.  From page_types.h under arch\x86\include\asm  /* PAGE_SHIFT determines the page size */ #define PAGE_SHIFT  12 #define PAGE_SIZE   (_AC(1,UL) &lt;&lt; PAGE_SHIFT) #define PAGE_MASK   (~(PAGE_SIZE-1))`   It doesn't look to be configurable.  I could change this number directly to 16 and it would probably make pretty explosions and destroy Tokyo.  I shall probably try it later this evening. Usage and example of the word “litotes” I've come across the word litotes, which means a rhetorical understatement. However, I’m having trouble understanding how to use it in colloquial English. Could someone please give an example? How do I use shell variables in an awk script? Can I use a 23 W CFL in a fixture that's rated for a 60 W incandescent? I have a lamp that is rated at 60 Watts for an incandescent bulb with a disclaimer to use a 13 Watt bulb instead when using a CFL replacement. Do I really need to respect that disclaimer? Would not a 23 Watt CFL be just as safe to use? It still draws less power than a 60 Watt incandescent, right? Is it possible to keep publishing under my professional (maiden) name, different from my married legal name? Does any uncountable set contain two disjoint uncountable sets? Is it true that for any uncountable $S$, there exits two uncountable subsets $S_1,S_2 \subseteq S$ with $S_1 \cap S_2 = \emptyset$?   I can find no counter example, but no proof either.  I am aware of similar questions regarding the partition of uncountable subsets of the real line, and there are many examples of disjoints uncountable subsets of $\mathbb{R}$, say $R_1,R_2$.   It is not clear to me however whether this extends to any uncountable set. For uncountable sets $S$ with $S \succeq_{card} \mathbb{R}$, there exists an injection $f : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow S$ and choosing $S_1,S_2$ with $S_i = \{s\in S~|~ s = f(r_i) $ for some $ r_i \in R_i\}$, works.   But from what I understood of the continuum hypothesis, there might exist an uncountable sets $H$ with $\mathbb{R} \succeq_{card} H$. So using the above argument, one cannot infer that the property holds for every uncountable sets from observing that it holds for $\mathbb{R}$. Is this right? Are there other ways to prove or disprove the assertion? Does mathematics become circular at the bottom? What is at the bottom of mathematics? I am trying to understand what mathematics is really built up of. I thought mathematical logic was the foundation of everything. But from reading a book in mathematical logic, they use "="(equals-sign), functions and relations.  Now is the "=" taken as undefined? I have seen it been defined in terms of the identity relation.  But in order to talk about functions and relations you need set theory.  However,  seems to be a part of mathematical logic.  Does this mean that (naive) set theory comes before sentential and predicate logic? Is (naive)set-theory at the absolute bottom, where we can define relations and functions and the eqality relation. And then comes sentential logic, and then predicate logic?  I am a little confused because when I took an introductory course, we had a little logic before set-theory. But now I see in another book on introduction to proofs that set-theory is in a chapter before logic. So what is at the bottom/start of mathematics, logic or set theory?, or is it circular at the bottom?  Can this be how it is at the bottom?  naive set-theory $\rightarrow$ sentential logic $\rightarrow $ predicate logic $\rightarrow$ axiomatic set-theory(ZFC) $\rightarrow$ mathematics  (But the problem with this explanation is that it seems that some naive-set theory proofs use logic...)  (The arrows are of course not "logical" arrows.)  simple explanation of the problem:  a book on logic uses at the start: functions, relations, sets, ordered pairs, "="  a book on set theory uses at the start: logical deductions like this: "$B \subseteq A$", means every element in B is in A, so if $C \subseteq B, B \subseteq A$, a proof can be "since every element in C is in B, and every element in B is in A, every element of C is in A: $C \subseteq A$". But this is first order logic? ($(c \rightarrow b \wedge b \rightarrow a)\rightarrow (c\rightarrow a)$).  Hence, both started from each other? Suppose that sequences of real numbers satisfy:  \begin{align*}   a_n &amp;= \sum\limits_{r=0}^n \binom{n}{r} b_r \\ \end{align*}  Prove that:  \begin{align*}   (-1)^n b_n &amp;= \sum\limits_{s=0}^n \binom{n}{s} (-1)^s a_s \\ \end{align*}  My work:  The $n=0$ case:  \begin{align*}   a_0 &amp;= b_0 \\   b_0 &amp;= a_0 \\ \end{align*}  Then $n=1$ case:  \begin{align*}   a_1 &amp;= \binom{1}{0} b_0 + \binom{1}{1} b_1 = b_0 + b_1 \\   -b_1 &amp;= \binom{1}{0} a_0 - \binom{1}{1} a_1 = a_0 - a_1 \\   b_1 &amp;= a_1 - a_0 = b_0 + b_1 - a_0 = b_1 \\ \end{align*}  The inductive step:  \begin{align*}   (-1)^{n+1} b_{n+1} &amp;= \sum\limits_{s=0}^{n+1} \binom{n+1}{s} (-1)^s a_s \\ \end{align*}  I'm not sure where to go from here. I tried substituting $a_s$ into that last equation and it didn't help. Any ideas? What is LINQ? I know it's for databases, but what does it do? When people want to classify a group with certain (small) order, they seem to find a normal subgroup $H$ and a subgroup $K$, and then consider how many distinct $H \rtimes_\varphi K$ are there.  My question is: For any group $G$, does it always exist normal subgroup $H$, subgroup $K$ and $\phi : K \rightarrow Aut(H)$ s.t. $G\cong H \rtimes_\varphi K $?  Sorry if this question is too basic...  Thanks the comment and the answers. Then if the $G$ is not simple, can we have can $G\cong H\rtimes_\varphi K$ for proper subgroup $H$, $K$, with $H$ normal?  EDIT:  If we have a group $G$, that is not simple (then $G$ has at least one normal subgroup), are there always a non-trivial normal subgroup $H$ and a proper subgroup $K$ s.t. $G \cong H \rtimes K$. (Note that if $G$ is simple this is clearly not possible).  But the quaternion group and $Z_4$ given in answers have shown that we cannot always have it.