I just wonder if there is a command line tool for eclipse java file formatter. Or if there is an ant task to execute it.  In my scenario, there are 2 java formatters, one is for android formatter, the other is our internal formatter.  So we have to change it between these two formatter.
Is there a way to use the formatter that comes with eclipse, outside of eclipse?  I would like to format some java files using my formatter.xml file that I have configured using eclipse.  Does anyone have any code examples that would allow me to do this?  I would also like to use this standalone, so the specific jars that are used would be nice.
Can all real polynomials be factored into quadratic and linear factors? Database Design Best Practices Is there any easy LINQ expression to concatenate my entire List&lt;string&gt; collection items to a single string with a delimiter character?  What if the collection is of custom objects instead of string? Imagine I need to concatenate on object.Name. I want to untriangulate every object in my scene with this script:  import bpy  for ob in bpy.data.objects:     bpy.ops.mesh.tris_convert_to_quads(limit=0.9, uvs=False, vcols=False, sharp=False, materials=False)   But it doesn't work in object mode, any ideas on how I can get it working? I have two servers (both servers are on Windows OS):   Server_A running Oracle 12c Server_B running SQL Server 2014   I want these servers to be able to see each other, so I can SELECT anything I want in Server_A from Server_B and vice versa.  I only want the ability to run SELECT queries (not INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE or any DDL queries), and also if possible to EXECUTE procedures.  What options or technologies we have for achieving this issue and which one is better?    Tell me if any software I have to install or any configuration have to be set on each of servers. I appreciate explaining the instructions step by step. "not a valid identifier" when I do "export $PATH" When I run export $PATH in bash, I get the error not a valid identifier. Why? Computing the $n^{\textrm{th}}$ permutation of bits. I've seen  post about the $n^{\textrm{th}}$ permutation of a set but that is not what I need. If you have a bit string (ones and zeros only) there are  to quickly permute the NEXT lexicographically ordered bit permutation. For example take $$000111 \rightarrow 001011 \rightarrow 001101\rightarrow\cdots$$ etc. If the string is long then there are going to be approximately one Bajillion of these things. And I want to know how to compute the $n^{\textrm{th}}$ guy without doing the exhaust.  Backgound: This is for a parallel computing job where I need to farm out the search space of elements of a set.  Foreground: I own a copy of Knuth's 4th volume of "The Art of Computer Programming" and I think the answer is in there but I can't seem to find it. (It's like 900 pages).  I'm posting here in the hopes that someone has knowledge of this (obviously). Even if you can point me to a source, say the part in Knuth's book where he describes this problem I would be most grateful. If all motion is relative, how does light have a finite speed? I've often heard that Einstein shattered the notion of absolute motion (i.e. all things move relative to one another) and that he established the speed of light as being absolute. That sounds paradoxical to me; I cannot understand how the two concepts can be reconciled.  Before going further, I'd like to say: 1) Over the years, I've seen many layman's explanations on these topics (including the nice YouTube video by Vsauce, ). I understand everything that's said (or, at least, I think I do). Just nothing I've found seems to address this apparent contradiction. 2) More recently, I've tried to find the answer on my own. That includes searching the posts on this site. Some come close (), but nothing I've been able to find seems address specifically what I'm asking.  Back to the question: Relativity shows us that there is no universal frame of reference by which to judge motion, so object A might be reckoned as moving at 10&nbsp;m/s relative to object B or as stationary relative to object C. This is fine for me. I can grasp that the universe has no intrinsic coordinate system, that we only think that way on Earth because we have the ground to move over.  Then there's the speed of light (in a vacuum). The speed of light is the ultimate "speed limit," it's often said. But if there is no universal frame of reference, how can there be any such speed? The very idea only make sense if there is a universal frame.   If one object is moving (uniformly) at 60%&nbsp;c and another object is also moving at 60%&nbsp;c, but in the exact opposite direct, then from the perspective of either one (if they could still see each other) the other would appear to violate that speed limit. All these spacetime bending consequences used to explain why nothing can move past this speed only seems to enshrine the concept that there is some ultimate speed standard. If there is only relative speed, then the concept of light having a specific speed in the vacuum should be a nonsensical one since it having speed (x m/s) would only make sense when measured against some other body.   Since I was very young, it has always sounded to me like motion is only mostly relative, that until you get close to the speed of light, the effects of an absolute frame of reference are negligible. Perhaps that there is an actual fabric of space which everything moves relative to, which is why there is something to expand between galaxies (faster than light can propagate) in the metric expansion of space. Growing up, I always thought this would just start makes sense with time. Now I'm up to a first year (college) level in physics, I even know basic calculus, yet I'm still hopelessly confused.  EDIT:  Thank you to whoever suggested this may be a duplicate of . It and others are very much related and at least partially answer my question. Unfortunately, explaining that distances become shorter and time becomes slower as a way to stop you from exceeding the speed of light does not explain how that speed is not an absolute.  By my reckoning, if all speed is relative, then no matter how fast you go light should always race away from you at the same apparent speed. I.e. there should be no speed limit. For there to be a speed which you cannot exceed or you would catch up (and make time irrelevant) requires the very concept of some external speed by which light can travel and nothing else can reach - thus my logical paradox continues unabated. Let $X \ge 0$.  Show  \begin{align} \lim_{y\to\infty} y\,\Bbb{E}\left[ \frac1X \cdot1_{X&gt;y} \right] &amp;= 0 \quad\text{and} \\ \lim_{y \downarrow 0} y\,\Bbb{E}\left[ \frac1X \cdot1_{X&gt;y} \right] &amp;= 0. \end{align}  N.B.: The author doesn't assume $\Bbb{E}[1/X] &lt; \infty$.    My try:  Since the expectation appears on the RHS of Markov's inequality, I don't think this inequality can be applied to solve this question.  $$ \begin{aligned} y\,\Bbb{E}\left[ \frac1X \cdot1_{X&gt;y} \right] &amp;= \Bbb{E}\left[ \frac{y}{X} \cdot1_{X&gt;y} \right] \\ &amp;&lt; \Bbb{E}\left[ 1 \cdot1_{X&gt;y} \right] \\ &amp;= \Bbb{P}(X &gt; y) \\ &amp;\xrightarrow[y\to0]{} \Bbb{P}(X \ge 0) = 1 \end{aligned} \tag1 \label1 $$  For the first part $y \to \infty$, I apply Markov's inequality at the row $\Bbb{P}(X &gt; y)$ in \eqref{1}, so that $$\Bbb{P}(X &gt; y) \le \frac{\Bbb{E}[X]}{y} \xrightarrow[y\to\infty]{} 0?$$ But I don't have $\Bbb{E}[X] &lt; \infty$.  Thanks for any help. Force.com IDE 35.0.0.201510211056 in Eclipse missing run test class option Force.com IDE 35.0.0.201510211056 and Force.com IDE Debugger 35.0.0.201510211056 in eclipse but it doesn't show this option to run test class, is their any way i can see it because it show the Apex_Test_Result panel but running a test class option is missing. plz help What is the resolution of tapping a blocking creature? Change default XML comment snippet in Visual Studio When I hit /// in Visual Studio, is it possible to change the resulting snippet from this:  /// &lt;summary&gt; ///  /// &lt;/summary&gt;   to this?:  /// &lt;summary&gt;&lt;/summary&gt; On Wikipedia, it says that $\lim_{n\to\infty}(1+\frac{1}{n})^n = e$ :     It [e] is approximately equal to 2.71828,[1] and is the limit of (1 + 1/n)n as n approaches infinity, ... ()   When I evaluate $(1+\frac{1}{n})^n$ for $n = 10^8$, I get approximately $2.718281798347$ which indeed is pretty close to $e$.  But when I try to "solve" the limit using the laws of limits, I get  $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n = \left(\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)\right)^n$$  because of the power law  $$ = \left(\lim_{n\to\infty}(1)+\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right)^n$$  because of the addition law  $$=\left(1+0\right)^n = 1$$  but that would mean that $e=1$, which is obviously not true.  What am I missing / doing wrong?  Thanks in advance. In Section 9 of Chapter 6, Lang constructrs for the first time a non-abelian extension as a splitting field $K$ of $X^n - a$ when the ground field $k$ does not contain primitive $n$-th roots of unity $\zeta_n$. He constructs an injective homomorphism of the Galois group $G(K/k)$ into the matrices of type   $$ M=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ b &amp; d \end{pmatrix} \quad \hbox{with}\ b\in \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z} \quad \hbox{and} \quad d\in (\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*,$$  where $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$ the multiplicative group of integers modulo n.  Afterwards, he states in Theorem 9.4 that if $n$ is an odd positive integer prime to the characterstic and $[k(\zeta_n):k]=\varphi(n)$ (i.e, the primitive roots of unity are not in the ground field), then the above homomorphism is, in fact, an isomorphism. Besides, the commutator group is $G(K/k(\zeta_n))$, so $k(\zeta_n)$ is the maximal abelian subextension of $K$.  Lang proves the theorem inductively over the number of prime factors in the decomposition of $n$ (i.e. if $n=9= 3\cdot 3$, then the proof "would take two steps" to complete). The induction start with $n$ prime is written clearly and I agree with it.   Now come the questions:   I do not understand Lang's argument to prove that the commutator subgroup is the subgroup $\begin{pmatrix}1 &amp; 0 \\ b &amp; 1\end{pmatrix}$, $b\in \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$. What is this projection on the diagonal and how does one see that the factor group of the commutator group is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$?   By the way, direct computation of $x\, y\, x^{-1}\, y^{-1}$ for two arbitrary matrices $x=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ b &amp; d \end{pmatrix}$, $y=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ c &amp; e \end{pmatrix}$ yields a matrix $\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ b(1-e)+c(d-1) &amp; 1 \end{pmatrix}$. As $n$ is odd, $2 \in (\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$, so taking $e=1$ and $d=2$, we indeed reconstruct the above-mentioned group.   The second (inductive) part of the proof is a complete mystery to me with virtually every sentence being a Theorem which needs an extra proof. Can someone give me some hints?   2.a. Lang writes $n=p\,m$ and takes $\alpha$ to be the root of $X^n-a$. It is clear that $\beta=\alpha^p$ is a root of $X^m -a$. Now comes the argument "By induction we can apply the theorem to $X^m-a$". I agree that we can apply it here but the result is that $K=k(\beta,\zeta_m)$ is the splitting field of $X^m-a$. In the diagram below, there appears $k(\beta,\zeta_n)$ out of nowhere.   2.b. Now Lang proceeds to apply the theorem on $X^p-\beta$ over $k(\beta)$. Bergman's "Companion" reminds to check that $[k(\beta,\zeta_p):k(\beta)]=\varphi(p)$ before applying the theorem and gives a hint "$[k(\zeta_p):k]$ and $[k(\beta):k]$ are relatively prime". I disagree with this hint. Take $n=21= m p$ where $m=3$ and $p=7$. Then $[k(\zeta_p):k]=\varphi(p)=p-1=6$ but $[k(\beta):k]=m=3$ and both are not co-prime. Can we apply the theorem here at all? Or if so what is the argument? If Bergman's argument is valid, where is the fault in my logic?  2.c. Even assuming that we can apply the theorem in 2.b., then we can say something about $k(\alpha, \zeta_p)$ and not $k(\alpha,\zeta_n)$. How do we proceed to checking everything Lang states in the last section of the proof (basically, everything after the diagram)?  EDIT: I have found the essentially same question Open CSV File with Different Delimiter Since a few months, on one of the desktop Ubuntu 14.04 systems I use, CPU has regularly been going up to 80-100% for no apparent reason. htop would usually attribute responsability to file system processes, such as nemo or ntfs. To get CPU back down I would kill these process, which in some cases would lead to loss of access to the file system and a consequent restart.  Days ago I noticed that whenever this situation happened another process was always present also using high CPU: mediascanner-service-2.0. Some research lead me to  that simply advised its removal. So I did.  The end result has been unexpectedly positive: not only are the high CPU load episodes gone, the system is altogether much faster. The speed up of the Lens is dramatic: finding an application like Calc now takes 2 seconds at most when previously it took some 20 seconds. Finding a file takes now some 5 seconds, whereas before it took in the order of 30 seconds. Heavy programmes like Eclipse are starting up faster and workspaces are more fluid. There seems to be also an overall reduction in the frequency of disk access.  What is exactly this mediascanner2.0 package? Is it part of Unity 7 or a dependency that gets installed a posteriori? Is it possible to prevent its installation?  Update: following  it is possible to track this package down to indicator-session:  $ sudo aptitude why mediascanner2.0 i   indicator-session         Recommends indicator-applet (&gt;= 0.2) | indicator-renderer i A unity8                    Provides   indicator-renderer                             i A unity8                    Recommends unity-scope-mediascanner2                      pi  unity-scope-mediascanner2 Depends    mediascanner2.0                                  Apparently, mediascanner2.0 (and the Unity 8 shell) are part of the base 14.04 system. Left to answer is the exact function of this rogue package. The advantages and disadvantages of using Kaiser Rule to select the number of principal components Is the Kaiser rule (choosing only PCs with eigenvalues >1, ) a reasonable method to select the number of principal components to retain? What are its pros and cons? Can internal forces do work? access parent object in javascript How do I get attention for one of my own questions without a good answer? I asked a question almost as soon as I got my account. I got a few decent answers, but none of them helped solve my problem. The question has long since become buried by newer questions, and there's still no accepted answer. Unfortunately, because there are quite a few answers with votes, to a casual observer it probably looks like the question was answered and I just neglected to mark an answer as accepted, and the system does not consider it "unanswered".  Or, I asked a question that was a bit more difficult to answer. After waiting for some time, I received no answers, little or no comments, and only a few views. The question does show up in the "unanswered" list, but no one has answered my question.  In either case, what's the protocol for me to try to get this question answered?  I see several options:   Post the question a second time, possibly linking to the original, to get attention for the original question. This is encouraged on sites like Reddit.  However, it's probably not appropriate here, since we're encouraged to check for duplicates and not submit a question that's already been asked by someone else, so this probably falls under that heading. Wait for some kind of wiki-like talk page to be implemented, then post a plea on the talk page for input and hope that activity on the talk page bumps up the question. Edit the question, but do nothing further on the Stack Exchange site. If I edit my post to say that I haven't accepted any of the current answers but am looking for more, then the question might get answered eventually by people browsing through old questions to find something they can answer. Post the question on other sites, but link to my original question on Stack Exchange. People will either answer here, or they'll answer on the other site and I can post the accepted answer here myself.  This might be considered spamming, so it might be better to do this without the link.      For more information, see the "" page in the .