I want to call the below command line in VB6. How can i call this:  hh.exe "ms-its:c:/Program Files (x86)/GST/Timken Syber Program/TimkenAnalysisHelp.chm::/01_Quick_Start_Guide/quickstart_initial_program_setup.htm"
How exactly using VB6 can I can call any Windows shell command as you would from the command-line?  For example, something as trivial as:  echo foo
How do I calculate the distance of an object in a photo? I saw this bug mentioned in image below, where in I was about to mark the question as duplicate..    Has you can see there is no radio buttons to select and go further.. And I am stuck..  Is this a KNOWN bug..  I am using Mozilla Firefox Browser..  Edit:-  As guided by @AzizShaikh, This kind of behaviour is observed when you have already flagged a post. In my opinion, I think the page as I mentioned above should not have come in first place, I mean don't allow the user to enter it doesn't belong here, or it is a duplicate section if his vote has been posted successfully for that section rather than showing go nowhere Im lost Screen ..  Can we do something about this...?? If I start a Google+ Hangout, is there anyway to send my friends a link directly to that Hangout post? I couldn't find any options.   So I have to send people a link to my profile, and let them click on the join hangout button. I prefer not to do that since the hangout post may be buried by my other updates. I want to earn Unicoins for free but I can't seem to find the best way mine coins faster. There are also sometimes when I get 20-30 Unicoins at one time, and I think that there is some clue so that we can know which rocks contain lots of Unicoins.. So do you have any idea you can share? Proper submodules of Noetherian modules are intersections of indecomposable modules If $M$ is Noetherian, any submodule $N \neq M$ can be written as a finite intersection of intersection-indecomposable ones.   I just don't know how to begin with the proof of this proposition.   Very kind of you for reading or answering. Why don't I have the right to create a text file in my root directory? $P_n(x):=1+ \sum_{m=1}^n\dfrac{x^m}{m!}$ has no real root for even $n$ and exactly one real root for odd $n$ Why can't we use entanglement to defy Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? In principle, it is possible to entangle any property of two particles, including speed and momentum. Surely then, this could be used to defy the Uncertainty Principle, which states that the momentum and position of a particle cannot be together measured with accuracy, but the more accurate one gets, the less accurate the other becomes:  $$\Delta x\Delta p=\dfrac{\hbar}{2}.$$  If one was to set up an experiment where two particles are entangled, one could then measure the position of one particle with great accurary at the same time as measuring the momentum of the other particle with great accuracy, which would mean that, as the two particles are entangled, one would then know the momentum of the particle they measured the position of.  Therefore, the Uncertainty Principle would have been defied, as both momentum and position have been measured with a high accuracy.  However, this can't be true, as someone would have thought of this before.  So why wouldn't this work? I thought the way to undo a \def was to define it to \relax, but that does not appear to work.  Also, am not sure why this produces no output if I try to use \def instead of \let in my attempt to do an undef.  \documentclass{article}  \begin{document}  \def\CaseA{}%  \ifdefined\CaseA%     \def\ProcessCaseA{}%     % Do stuff that uses \ProcessCaseA     %\def\ProcessCaseA\relax% no output if use this, and comment next line     \let\ProcessCaseA\relax% no output if comment this, and use above line \fi  % Now do stuff that requires \ProcessCaseA NOT be defined \ifdefined\ProcessCaseA     ERROR: \textbackslash ProcessCaseA is still defined \else     SUCCESS: \textbackslash ProcessCaseA is not defined \fi  \end{document} Where can I find fantasy minis on the cheap? I'm looking to build a collection of fantasy miniatures, preferably pewter - but I don't want to buy them one at a time from my local hobby store... Much too expensive, and they don't often carry anything I'm interested in buying, which makes it a long term venture as well. So I'm looking for ideas on how to obtain many miniatures at once, preferably for cheap. D&amp;D Miniatures aren't a good source for me as they're collectibles, and the prices on those are also prohibitive.  By the way - they don't have to be pewter, that's just my preference. =) Suppose I am running a regression $Y \sim X$. Why by selecting top $k$ principle components of $X$, does the model retain its predictive power on $Y$?   I understand that from dimensionality-reduction/feature-selection point of view, if $v_1, v_2, ... v_k$ are the eigenvectors of covariance matrix of $X$ with top $k$ eigenvalues, then $Xv_1, Xv_2 ... Xv_k$ are top $k$ principal components with maximum variances. We can thereby reduce the number of features to $k$ and retain most of the predictive power, as I understand it.   But why do top $k$ components retain the predictive power on $Y$?   If we talk about a general OLS $Y \sim Z$, there is no reason to suggest that if feature $Z_i$ has maximum variance, then $Z_i$ has the most predictive power on $Y$.   Update after seeing comments: I guess I have seen tons of examples of using PCA for dimensionality reduction. I have been assuming that means the dimensions we are left with have the most predictive power. Otherwise what's the point of dimensionality reduction? The usual Schrodinger Lagrangian is $$ \tag 1 i(\psi^{*}\partial_{t}\psi ) + \frac{1}{2m} \psi^{*}(\nabla^2)\psi, $$ which gives the correct equations of motion, with conjugate momentum for $\psi^{*}$ vanishing. This Lagrangian density is not real but differs from a real Lagrangian density  $$ \tag 2 \frac{i}{2}(\psi^{*}\partial_{t}\psi -\psi \partial_{t}\psi^{*} ) + \frac{1}{2m} \psi^{*}(\nabla^2)\psi $$ by a total derivative.  My trouble is that these two lagrangian densities lead to different conjugate momenta and hence when setting equal time commutation relations, I am getting different results (a factor of 2 is causing the problem). I can rescale the fields but then my Hamiltonian also changes. Then applying Heisenberg equation of motion, I don't get the operator Schrodinger equation.   Is it possible to work with the real Lagrangian density and somehow get the correct commutation relations? I would have expected two Lagrangians differing by total derivative terms to give identical commutation relations (since canonical transformations preserve them). But perhaps I am making some very simple error. Unless all conjugate momenta are equivalent for two Lagrangians differing by total derivatives, how does one choose the correct one?   I guess the same thing happens for other first order systems like Dirac Lagrangian also. Is "you are welcome" more polite than "no problem"?  What is the general proper reply to a thank-you? What happens in a circuit, when the wire and the battery are superconducting. And shorted Do you need to take the Hide action when you are Invisible, make no noise and leave no traces? The Situation: Lets say you are under the effect of Invisibility.  An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.  And you are wearing the Boots of Elvenkind  While you wear these boots, your steps make no sound, regardless of the surface you are moving across. You also have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks that rely on moving silently.  Now your groups ranger or druid casts Pass Without Trace on you.  [...] can’t be tracked except by magical means. A creature that receives this bonus leaves behind no tracks or other traces of its passage.  My Question(s): I know that when you are Invisible and you did not hide, you are still detectable because of the noise and the track you leave behind. But the Boots of Elvenkind and Pass Without Trace take care of that. So:  Are you still required to take the hide action in this situation if you don't want enemies to know your location/presence? If so, why? What gives away your location? If not and you are under the effect of greater Invisibility do you get the benefits of &quot;Unseen Attackers and Targets&quot; for every attack you make when you move between attacks? (You would give away your location, but are not detectable, so completely hidden again when you move) Calculating projected area of polygons with field calculator in ArcMap? Simulate limited bandwidth from within Chrome? I'm working in a C++ unmanaged project.  I need to know how can I take a string like this "some data to encrypt" and get a byte[] array which I'm gonna use as the source for Encrypt.  In C# I do    for (int i = 0; i &lt; text.Length; i++)     buffer[i] = (byte)text[i];   What I need to know is how to do the same but using unmanaged C++.  Thanks! How do I spell the possessive form of children? In the sentence below, are the usages of apostrophes correct?     In research about parent stereotypes, the correlation between parents’ beliefs about their early elementary age children’s’ mathematics abilities and the children’s actual abilities increased as children aged. How can I hide my code in visualforce page?