How to get log from an android application I want to see the log files of an android app and all of its outputs when it runs. Please tell me how i can do this. Thanks in advance
How can I get crash data (stack traces at least) from my Android application? At least when working on my own device being retrieved by cable, but ideally from any instance of my application running on the wild so that I can improve it and make it more solid.
Story about protagonist finding a world that has died with a museum dd aplied to dev USB before connect corrupt /dev/sdX and dont work I have a USB where I'm coping an ISO of 5 Mb aprox with a small OS with its own grub. If I connect the device and check it sudo fdisk -l I get:  ... Device     Boot Start   End Sectors  Size Id Type /dev/sdb1  *        1  9551    9551  4.7M cd unknown   If I copy with dd the ISO sudo dd if=my_os.iso of=/dev/sdb   14852+0 records in 14852+0 records out 7604224 bytes (7.6 MB) copied, 0.538487 s, 14.1 MB/s   It works perfectly. An boot from BIOS in other PC.  The problem is, sometime I forget to connect the USB after update the BIOS, so I do ff WITHOUT the USB connected,  the output is:  14852+0 records in 14852+0 records out 7604224 bytes (7.6 MB) copied, 0.00987684 s, 770 MB/s   Now, the /dev/sdb register is corrupted, the copy speed (770 MB/s) have no sense, and cannot user again dd until reboot.  I have tried to repair it with ddrescue and it doesn't work  sudo ddrescue /dev/zero /dev/sdb conv=noerror,sync   My question is, what is happening exactly and if is possible, how to repair /dev/sdb to avoid reboot and dd start working again?  Thanks. I have my bachelors degree in engineering science: computer science, option electrotechnic. I have a good understanding of basic mechanics and dynamics, calculus (differential equations).  The books I'm now having a look at are:       What book do you recommend for studying fluid dynamics on my own and why? How to extract a number from a string Im a newbie in Apex and im developing a page using Visualforce.  My string format is always like this "xx-xx-999999". In this format I need to get only the integer. For example the string is  "RO-W1-445567". I want to get only the integer 445567 in the string. Can someone willing to share a piece of apex code in my problem.  Your help is vey much appreciated.  Thanks in advance!  Ferdie Banu How did Harry become a Horcrux? Are Groups or Sketchup-like components feasible in Blender? Apart from testing it myself, I've seen a few posts  and , including from Sketchup users like me, sort of circle around this topic but never ask this question directly. How can I overcome these problems in DupliGroups or Collection Instances?  moving its origin seems to require moving to World origin (and using up a layer for clarity) &lt;=&gt; linked meshes have their own local origin which I can move data around in Edit Mode (easy enough)  It is impractical to link up DupliGroup data to previously created meshes because the origin mismatch as above, and the mesh data that remains in it and needs to be deleted somehow  Linked meshes don't have the above two problems (can be 'blocked in' and then detailed up all at once) but I can't add objects to them, only faces. Say I'd like to add handles as linked meshes, because handles are used elsewhere in the model too.    How feasible would it be to make a linked object type with deeper hierarchy? Say an object that would look at its children and simply make every other instance have the same children. It would also mean dragging and dropping in outliner would be the simplest way to manage it by the looks of it. The number of different ways to choose $k$ out of $n$ unique items:   Without repetition and without order-significance: $\binom{n}{k}=\frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$ Without repetition and with order-significance: $\binom{n}{k}\times k!=\frac{n!}{(n-k)!}$ With repetition and with order-significance: $n^k$ With repetition and without order-significance: $?$   Thank you! Don't heavier objects actually fall faster because they exert their own gravity? The common understanding is that, setting air resistance aside, all objects dropped to Earth fall at the same rate. This is often demonstrated through the thought experiment of cutting a large object in half. The halves clearly can't then fall more slowly just by being sliced in two.  However, I believe the answer is that when two objects fall together, attached or not, they do "fall" faster than an object of less mass alone does. This is because not only does the Earth accelerate the objects toward itself but the objects also accelerate the Earth toward themselves. Considering the formula: $$ F_{\text{g}} = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{d^2} $$  Given $F = ma$ thus $a = F/m$, we note that the mass of the small object doesn't seem to matter as when calculating acceleration the force is divided by the $m$ term, its mass. However, this overlooks that the force is actually applied to both objects, not just to the smaller one. The acceleration on the second, larger object is found by dividing $F$, in turn, by the larger object's mass. The two objects' acceleration vectors are exactly opposite, so closing acceleration is the sum of the two:  $$ a_{\text{closing}} = \frac{F}{m_1} + \frac{F}{m_2} $$  Since the Earth is extremely massive compared to everyday objects, the acceleration imparted on the object by the Earth will radically dominate the equation. As the Earth is $\sim 5.972 \times {10}^{24} \, \mathrm{kg} ,$ a falling object of $5.972 \, \mathrm{kg}$ (just over 13 pounds) would accelerate the Earth about $\frac{1}{{10}^{24}}$ as much, which is one part in a trillion trillion.  Of course in everyday situations, we can for all practical purposes treat objects as falling at the same rate because of this negligible difference—which our instruments probably couldn't even detect. But I'm hoping not for a discussion of practicality or what's measurable or observable, but what we think is actually happening.  Am I right or wrong?  What really clinched this for me was considering dropping a small Moon-massed object close to the Earth and a small Earth-massed object close to the Moon. This made me realize that falling isn't one object moving toward some fixed frame of reference, but that the Earth is just another object, and thus "falling" consists of multiple objects mutually attracting in space. I've recently come across several statements to the effect "there are questions science can't answer", mostly from proponents of  and , but also from  and  as well.   However it seemed to me that there was an inherent contradiction in statements of the type "Science doesn't have all the answers" or "Science can't answer all questions". This is hinged on what is meant by "answering a question". It seems to me that to answer any significant question is to provide 2 things:    An accurate and objective explanation of the current state of affairs, in terms of relationships, causes and effects.  Based on that explanation, a method for making decisions if one is faced with future scenarios similar to or related to the current state of affairs, and for predicting future states of affairs with a certain amount probability, i.e the explanation is useful for future purposes.   But then if a field of inquiry is able to provide accurate, objective and useful information regarding a question, doesn't that field simply become part of science?   As examples:    If some school of mysticism is demonstrated to truly improve the happiness and well being of it's practitioners, then wouldn't that school's mystical teachings simply be incorporated into mainstream psychology and psychotherapy?  Similarly, if a political ideology is proven to provide better economic conditions and less crime, less pollution, etc...then this ideology's principles would become an accepted part of social sciences?     To put it more simply: Science has all the answers, because science IS anything that can provide objective and useful answers to a question.  Am I not talking about the demarcation problem per-se (at I least I think I am not), because even disciplines which are agreed upon as failing various demarcation criteria (such as astrology or intelligent design) are still trying (and failing) to be scientific in the sense I mentioned above. If they did start to provide answers, science would have to take them into account. Moreover, various philosophical schools of ethics are trying to be scientific in their explanatory framework, they are just not able to provide verifiable and falsifiable statements to prove their precepts (and probably would do so if possible).   My questions then are:    Per those who claim that science can't answer all questions, what type of question are they talking about? Do they have a demarcation criteria for such questions? (I'm not asking for examples, there are already plenty in the links I posted above).  If a field starts providing objective, accurate answers, doesn't it just become a subfield of science?   Is there a second demarcation problem between "carckpot" pseudosciences (such as astrology or numerology) which are providing the wrong answers and legitimate fields of inquiry (such as political theory or ethics) which are trying to provide answers but so far have failed to provide verifiable and falsifiable statements or accurate predictions? What prevents this magnetic perpetuum mobile from working? How to determine the encoding of text? Let $a,b,n$ be integers such that  $\gcd(a,n)=\gcd(b,n)=1$. How to show that $\gcd(ab,n)=1$?   In other words, how to show that if two integers $a$ and $b$ each have no non-trivial common divisor with and integer $n$, then their product does no have a non-trivial common divisor with $n$ either.     This is a problem that is an exercise in my course.   Intuitively it seems plausible and it is easy to check in specific cases but how to  give an actual proof is not obvious. Is the function Riemann integrable? If yes, obtain the value of $\int_0^1f(x) \ dx$      $f(x) = \begin{cases} \frac {1}{n},  &amp; \frac{1}{n+1}&lt;x\le\frac{1}{n}\\ 0, &amp; x=0 \end{cases}$   My attempt  $f$ is bounded and monotonically increasing on $[0,1]$. Also, $f$ has infinite discontinuities but only one limit point. Therefore $f$ is Riemann integrable. Now, to calculate the integration  $\int_0^1f(x) \ dx=\int_{1/2}^{1}1 \ dx + \int_{1/3}^{1/2}\frac{1}{2} \ dx + \int_{1/4}^{1/3}\frac{1}{3} \ dx+...$  $=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2}-\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{n+1}$  How do I proceed from here? How do I calculate these summations? I know $\sum \frac{1}{n}$ is $\log 2$, but not the other two summations. Clipping raster with mask in QGIS gives AAIGrid error? Do not show ellipsis when not needed in search results When doing a search, the results page shows an ellipsis when it is not needed. For instance:    The message of that answer is shorter than the text overflow limit, which means the ellipsis (...) should not be shown. I'm an on and off user of LaTeX so I'm not familiar with every package out there. Having said that, whenever I use LaTeX and need to accomplish a certain goal (i.e. ), I search around and find some kind of solution that involves a package that I didn't know about. I think that's great, I learn something new, and it goes in my template file.  Every now and then, though, my search comes up with a package that, after much wrangling, I find out that it's obsolete. An example of this is just recently I came across the subfigure package and wanted to try it out. Soon after I found out from here that it has become . I usually keep my TeX up-to-date because I like keeping up with new XeLaTeX features.   My question is, is there a map or timeline of what TeX packages should be avoided because there are better ways of doing things? An idea I have is some kind of list of all packages split by what they accomplish, then cancelling out packages whose features are incorporated into and improved upon by newer packages.  Edit: another example is lscape versus pdflscape. The latter implements rotating pages in the final PDF not just for pdftex but also for other drivers such as xetex. The only way I found out about this was Googling latex lscape rotate xelatex, for which the second link leads to the  (PDF).  Great answers so far. I'll check them out and see which one works best for me.  Edit 2: Turns out that my question is a bit of a dupe in the sense that a great answer came up on an unrelated question. The nag package . Gotta try it! This is Ubuntu server 10.04 64 and samba 3.4.7.  I have a shared directory /home/mit/share and another one /home/temp that I link into the shared one:  ln -s /home/temp /home/mit/share/temp   But on windows, after using internet, I cannot open S:/temp, but on Linux it is possible to access /home/mit/share/temp like expected.   This works if I link directories inside /home/mit/share/temp, so I guess samba is restricting to jump with a link outside/above the shared directory.   EDIT:  See also this question titled .  It seems best to put unix extensions = no into the global section and follow symlinks = yes and wide links = yes only into the shares section, where you really need it.  The unix extension flag has to live in the global section and not in the individual shares sections. But for security reasons it is better to use the other options only where you need it, and not globally. I'm creating a historically inspired campaign where the standard fantasy races are extremely intermingled, and conflict is usually based on politics or religion, rather than species divisions. I can't, however, think of a good word to separate the PC races (Elves, dwarves, humans, halflings... you guys know.) from the monsters and creatures who live outside society. Basically, if in the real world someone would say: "I refuse to kill another human." in this setting I need a catch-all word to replace human.  Sentient sounds too sci-fi. Kindred sounds too... Vampire-y. Any suggestions? build folder usage issues Atiyah-Macdonald, Exercise 5.4 I was having some trouble with the following exercise from Atiyah-Macdonald.     Let $A$ be a subring of $B$ such that $B$ is integral over $A$. Let $\mathfrak{n}$ be a maximal ideal of $B$ and let $\mathfrak{m}=\mathfrak{n} \cap A$ be the corresponding maximal ideal of $A$. Is $B_{\mathfrak{n}}$ integral over $A_{\mathfrak{m}}$?   The book gives a hint which serves as a counter-example. Consider the subring $k[x^{2}-1]$ of $k[x]$ where $k$ is a field, and let $\mathfrak{n}=(x-1)$. I am trying to show that $1/(x+1)$ could not be integral over $k[x^{2}-1]_{\mathfrak{n}^{c}}$.  I have understood why this situation serves as a counterexample. But I am essentially stuck at trying to draw a contradiction. A hint or any help would be great.