Find NearBy App Not Working After following all instructions and  installing  Find Nearby I attempted to geo code the accounts and the screen comes back saying "Locating accounts...do not close this window" with a large blank box and it appears nothing is happening.   I've tried geocoding from the geocode tab and by clicking on Locate Account but neither works.  I just keep getting the message "Locating Accounts do not close this window" with the blank box.  I tried in IE, chrome and firefox browsers but is the same issue. Can you please tell me what  browser setting needs to be change to make it work in IE or chrome.  Thanks in advance Gaurav
Find Nearby Accounts migration to Google Maps API v3 we have been using the Find Nearby Accounts app from appexchange for a while now. The app uses the Google Maps API vs 2 which is now deprecated and hence has rendered the app ineffective. I have tried migrating the Google maps API version for the app from v2 to v3 by generating a v3 API key. The URL for my salesforce instance was included in the creation of the Client ID under API Access. After all these steps, I still get the error "Problem with Address. I know the address is right.   Has anyone been able to get this working? Thanks.
I am creating a chat using Ajax requests and I'm trying to get messages div to scroll to the bottom without much luck. I am wrapping everything in this div: #scroll {     height:400px;     overflow:scroll; }  Is there a way to keep it scrolled to the bottom by default using JS? Is there a way to keep it scrolled to the bottom after an ajax request? How can I make my AES encryption identical between Java and Objective-C (iPhone)? Prove that $\omega + \omega_1 = \omega \cdot \omega_1 = \omega^{\omega_1} = \omega_1$ I am assuming already that a) the union of countably many countable sets is countable and  b) $\omega_1$ is the least uncountable ordinal, so $x &lt; \omega_1$ if and only if $x$ is a countable ordinal.   I'm not sure if it is relevant but this question also allows The Axiom of Choice.   Thanks How to compute PCA scores from eigendecomposition of the covariance matrix? Given a data matrix $\mathbf X$ of $12 \times 7$ size with samples in rows and variables in columns, I have calculated centered data $\mathbf X_c$ by subtracting column means, and then computed covariance matrix as $\frac{1}{N-1} \mathbf X_c^\top \mathbf X_c$.  The dimensions of this covariance matrix are $7 \times 7$. After that I have calculated the eigenvalue decomposition, obtaining eigenvector matrix $\mathbf V$ with eigenvectors in columns.  Now I want to know about projections (i.e. principal component scores in PCA): is it $\mathbf{V}^\top \mathbf{X}_c$ or $\mathbf{X}_c \mathbf{V}$?  mean_matrix = X - repmat(mean(X),size(X,1),1); covariance = (transpose(mean_matrix) * mean_matrix)/(12-1);  [V,D] = eig(covariance); [e,i] = sort(diag(D), 'descend'); V_sorted = V(:,i); What is the difference between \par, \newline, \\ and blank lines? When should I use which one? If a user is the type of person to consecutively get downvoted to potential negative reputation, so be it. What's the reasoning to maintain a minimum of one?  One reason that may justify this is of trying to not deter new users from the site who haven't read the FAQ and unknowingly and wrongly ask or answer a question. But most of us acknowledge this and not downvote in such a scenario.  So what's the reasoning behind this lower bound of 1? How do I refresh the package list? Errors and Residuals How to completely delete the head of a function expression How do you match only valid roman numerals with a regular expression? Thinking about , i decided I can't even create a regular expression that will match roman numerals (let alone a context-free grammar that will generate them)  The problem is matching only valid roman numerals.  Eg, 990 is NOT "XM", it's "CMXC"  My problem in making the regex for this is that in order to allow or not allow certain characters, I need to look back. Let's take thousands and hundreds, for example.  I can allow M{0,2}C?M (to allow for 900, 1000, 1900, 2000, 2900 and 3000). However, If the match is on CM, I can't allow following characters to be C or D (because I'm already at 900).  How can I express this in a regex? If it's simply not expressible in a regex, is it expressible in a context-free grammar? All Stack Exchange data dumps The original ClearBits link to the September 2011 data dump has broken. How can I access it and other previous data dumps? The Internet Archive only has . Examples of patterns that eventually fail Often, when I try to describe mathematics to the layman, I find myself struggling to convince them of the importance and consequence of "proof". I receive responses like: "surely if Collatz is true up to $20×2^{58}$, then it must always be true?"; and "the sequence of number of edges on a complete graph starts $0,1,3,6,10$, so the next term must be 15 etc."  Granted, this second statement is less logically unsound than the first since it's not difficult to see the reason why the sequence must continue as such; nevertheless, the statement was made on a premise that boils down to "interesting patterns must always continue".  I try to counter this logic by creating a ridiculous argument like "the numbers $1,2,3,4,5$ are less than $100$, so surely all numbers are", but this usually fails to be convincing.  So, are there any examples of non-trivial patterns that appear to be true for a large number of small cases, but then fail for some larger case? A good answer to this question should:   be one which could be explained to the layman without having to subject them to a 24 lecture course of background material, and have as a minimal counterexample a case which cannot (feasibly) be checked without the use of a computer.   I believe conditions 1. and 2. make my question specific enough to have in some sense a "right" (or at least a "not wrong") answer; but I'd be happy to clarify if this is not the case. I suppose I'm expecting an answer to come from number theory, but can see that areas like graph theory, combinatorics more generally and set theory could potentially offer suitable answers. Determine the number of functions $f: \{1,2,3....,1999\}\to \{2000,2001,2002,2003\}$satisfying the condition that $f(1)+f(2)+...f(1999)$ is odd. Problems:Determine the number of functions $$f: \{1,2,3....,1999\}\to \{2000,2001,2002,2003\}$$ satisfying the condition that $f(1)+f(2)+...f(1999)$ is odd.   My Attempt: Each integer in domain has $4$ choices and therefore the total number of functions is $f$ is $4^{1999}.$ Since there are an equal number of functions that yield odd or even result, we can directly write that the number of functions satisfying the above condition to be $2*4^{1998}.$ I am unsure about this last claim and would like to prove it (if it is true.)Also is the answer to this problem correct?  Edit $1$: I tried to proceed further in the following manner:   For a given mapping $f$ let the number of integers assigned to $2000,2001,2002$ amd $2003$ be $p,q,r$ and $s$ respectively, where $p,q,r,s\in \mathbb{Z}^+$. Therefore the sum in question can be written as $f(1)+f(2)+...+f(1999)=2000p+2001q+2002r+2003s.$ Clearly the sum will be odd iff $q+s$  is odd. Also note that $p+q+r+s=1999\Rightarrow p+r$ is even. On the other hand if we let $q+s$ as even then $p+r$ must be even. Now the number of values of $p,q,r$ and $s$ for which the above two lemmas hold is the same and therefore if we let $f$ to be the function which maps elements form $\{1,2,3,...,1999\}$ to $\{2000,2001,2002,2003\}$ such that $q+s$ is even and $g$ to be the function  hich maps elements form $\{1,2,3,...,1999\}$ to $\{2000,2001,2002,2003\}$ such that $p+q$ is even we will get a bijection.(Maybe!) Flair for Unicode usernames broken \@seccntformat only for section I would like to add a dot between the number of the section and section name. I used   \makeatletter \renewcommand*{\@seccntformat}[1]{% \csname the#1\endcsname .} \makeatother   The problem is that, obviously, it put a dot also among subsection number and subsection name which I do not want. Is it possible to add the dot only between section number and section using low level instructions i.e. without any additional package? Why is it possible to answer a question twice? I'm trying to prove the following statements.  Let $G$ be a finite abelian group $G = \{a_{1}, a_{2}, ..., a_{n}\}$.   If there is no element $x \neq e$ in $G$ such that $x = x^{-1}$, then $a_{1}a_{2} \cdot \cdot \cdot a_{n} = e$.   Since the only element in $G$ that is an inverse of itself is the identity element $e$, for every other element $k$, it must have an inverse $a_{k}^{-1} = a_{j}$ where $k \neq j$. Thus $a_{1}a_{1}^{-1}a_{2}a_{2}^{-1} \cdot \cdot \cdot a_{n}a_{n}^{-1} = e$.   If there is exactly one $x \neq e$ in $G$ such that $x = x^{-1}$, then $a_{1}a_{2} \cdot \cdot \cdot a_{n} = x$.   This is stating that $x$ is not the identity element but is its own inverse. Then every other element $p$ must also have an inverse $a_{p}^{-1} = a_{w}$ where $p \neq w$. Similarly to the first question, a rearrangement can be done: $a_{1}a_{1}^{-1}a_{2}a_{2}^{-1} \cdot \cdot \cdot xx^{-1} \cdot \cdot \cdot  a_{n}a_{n}^{-1} = xx^{-1} = e$. And this is where I am stuck since I proved another statement.    Any comments would be appreciated for both problems. How is it the Voyagers are a few seconds closer to Earth than earlier? The  of March 01, 2013 put it's distance at 14 hrs 04 mins 23 secs of light-travel time from Earth. A  (earlier today) tweet says it is 14 hrs 04 mins 22 secs of light-travel time from Earth. An  tweet put it still further out at 14 hrs 04 mins 25 secs of light-travel time.  The Voyager 2 tweets on Voyager 1's proximity to Earth too has reduced similarly to  earlier today from  reported on Feb 28 2013  It could quite simply be a typo ... If not a typo then my curiosity is piqued; I was under the impression the Voyagers are outbound from the Solar System now without any major in-system activities now.   How is it the Voyagers are closer to Earth than before? I am using MikTex 2.9 and TeXstudio for my TeX preparation. I would like to set the path to my figures folder, which contains all the figures, plots etc. required for my work.   I used \graphicspath to set the directory, but it gives me an error message:  \documentclass[12pt]{article}  \usepackage{graphicx}  \graphicspath{D:/LATEX/Reports@IIT/figures}  \begin{document} \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=4cm,angle=0]{logo.jpg}  \end{document}      Error: Package pdftex.def Error: File `logo.jpg' not found   However, when I prepend the filenames of the images with the same path in the \includegraphics command, it works just fine:  \documentclass[12pt]{article}  \usepackage{graphicx}  \begin{document}  \includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=4cm,angle=0]{D:/LATEX/Reports@IIT/figures/logo.jpg}  \end{document}   Why is \graphicspath not setting the path? If "clearly evident" is redundant, what word or phrase suggests being indisputable but not readily apparent? A  asks whether the modifier "clearly" changes the meaning of "evident". I would have said, prior to examining a few dictionaries, that evident did not necessarily mean readily apparent, but to my surprise it does.  This brings me to ask what word or expression would mean something can be taken as a true fact, but not through an easily constructed (not obvious or readily apparent) rationale?   For example, if Sherlock Holmes says something is true while everyone else is still sitting on their hands, then it is evident to Holmes, but not to the rest of the world. So, from everyone else's point of view, it is not readily apparent, and (by definition) apparently it is not evident, clear, or clearly evident at all, based on the dictionary definitions. But (let's stipulate) it is true and deducible from the observable evidence. What would we call this?  Update  An update is highlighted above. I can see from some of the answers and comments that I may have gone off my mark with the phrase "not through an easy-to-follow rationale”, and I have modified the question to correct this. I understand that there can be rationales, arguments, or proofs that, once explained, may or may not be easy to follow. What I intend is that the rationale to support the indisputable conclusion is not (initially) easy to recognize or construct (not readily apparent) in the first place. I apologize for the confusion. (The original can be seen in the change history.)  Update 2  Shortly after offering a bounty to this request, I recalled a single word that I now believe is a very good match to the parameters specified in this inquiry as it is stated above. That word has not yet been suggested (or approached) by any answer or comment (active or deleted) at the time of this edit. This request is changed to a single word request. (However, if you feel a single word fits well but not without some additional supporting words, please offer your thoughts in an answer.) While my curiosity for the term has already been met, the request and bounty remain as an open challenge. I will post my own answer once the bounty has expired and been awarded.