I am running Windows XP and have a phone mounted through USB by MTP.  In Explorer, its address is:  My Computer\SAMSUNG-SGH-I547\Phone\DCIM   I would like to execute a command line command such as  explorer "My Computer\SAMSUNG-SGH-I547\Phone\DCIM\Camera"   so as to quickly go to the Camera folder. (Right-clicking the device or anything in it does NOT provide a "Create Shortcut" dialog.)  But "My Computer" is not a valid PATH in Windows. Unlike USB flash drives, it seems the phone mounted by MTP does not get a letter drive name.  So, what is the path of an MTP device in Windows?  If the answer is there is no command line path, is there workaround?
Most MTP () devices show up in Windows File Explorer under their device name or a GUID, but they don't have a drive letter assigned.  How can I access the files on such devices from the command line? Using either cmd.exe or PowerShell.
Testing convergence of series $\sum_{n=3}^\infty\frac{1}{n (\ln(n))^p(\ln\ln(n))^q}$ Suppose the following dialogue:  ... &quot;I accept only one notion of land property. Namely, 'I am doing my stuff here, therefore I am here&quot;. &quot;But this means,&quot; he responded, &quot;you can break into any place and stay there, using this rule.&quot; &quot;There is another rule, though. Right to act in its most natural sense, 'I am here, therefore I am doing my stuff here.&quot; &quot;But do not these rules put together become circular reasoning?&quot; &quot;Of course, they do,&quot; I put my head closer to him, &quot;and this is exactly that rare case when circular reasoning is not only sufficient, but is necessary.&quot; &quot;But why is that? Circular reasoning never was a correct argument.&quot; &quot;There are many circular things happening in nature. Life forms, for example, exist only in order to produce new life forms or to prolongate their own lifetime. Is there any reason to say this can't be the case for reason itself? Why must reasoning not be circular?&quot; ...  Can circular reasoning ever be justified? For example, we know all the words in our languages can't be defined using other words without the use of circularity. We know logic can't prove itself without circularity. Are these arguments rational? Are there any other arguments where circular reasoning is still rational? Could someone please explain the differences between the 3 fitting methods, method = c("CSS-ML", "ML", "CSS"), in Arima?  If I run the code below I get an error message, but if I specify method="ML" in Arima it runs fine.  So I was curious what the difference was between the 3 fitting methods.  Code with error:  library("fpp")  tsTrain &lt;- window(hsales,end=1989.99)  pvar&lt;-1:10 dvar&lt;-1:2 qvar&lt;-1:7  OrderGrid&lt;-expand.grid(pvar,dvar,qvar)  n &lt;- function(a,b,c) {Arima(tsTrain, order=c(a,b,c))} ModFit &lt;- do.call(Vectorize(n, SIMPLIFY=FALSE), unname(OrderGrid))   Fixed Code:  library("fpp")  tsTrain &lt;- window(hsales,end=1989.99)  pvar&lt;-1:10 dvar&lt;-1:2 qvar&lt;-1:7  OrderGrid&lt;-expand.grid(pvar,dvar,qvar)  n &lt;- function(a,b,c) {Arima(tsTrain, order=c(a,b,c),method="ML")} ModFit &lt;- do.call(Vectorize(n, SIMPLIFY=FALSE), unname(OrderGrid)) The brightness of my laptop is reset to max on every restart. I tried the solution provided at  but had no luck.   This command   cat /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/max_brightness   Returns   cat: /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/max_brightness: No such file or directory   Then I found that I don't have a folder named acpi_video0, but a folder called intel_backlight:    Every time I increase or decrease the brightness using the brightness control keys, the values in brightness and actual_brightness get updated.  Is there any method I could follow to set the brightness to a fixed value on every boot and vary it as and when I need it using the brightness control keys? Delta-like symbol in LaTeX I'd like to write a majuscule delta-like symbol in LaTeX but I can't find it's syntax anywhere. You can see the symbol on equation (12) of the following paper:  "". Was Mjolnir ever used for building something? In the movie Thor (2011), while he was about to crown Thor as the next king of Asgard, Allfather Odin describes the mighty hammer Mjolnir as the following:      So long entrusted with this mighty hammer, Mjolnir. Forged in the heart of a dying star, from the sacred metal of Uru. Only one may ift it. Only one is worthy. Who wields this hammer commands the lightning and the storm. Its power has no equal -- as a weapon, to destroy, or as a tool, to build. It is a fit companion for a King.   We know Mjolnir as a weapon of destruction but are there references where it is used to build something? An idempotent operator is compact if and only if it is of finite rank Under what condition we can interchange order of a limit and a summation? Can somebody please check if my proof is okay?  Prove that $||z_1|-|z_2|| \leq |z_1-z_2|$.  Attempt: This proof seems similar to the triangle inequality proof.  $$\begin{split} |z_1-z_2|^2 &amp;= (z_1-z_2) \overline{(z_1-z_2)} \\ &amp;= (z_1-z_2)(\bar z_1 - \bar z_2) \\ &amp;= z_1\bar z_1 - z_1 \bar z_2 - \bar z_1 z_2 + z_2 \bar z_2\\ &amp;=|z_1|^2 - 2Re(z_1 \bar z_2) + |z_2|^2\\ &amp; \geq |z_1|^2 -2|z_1 \bar z_2| + |z_2|^2 \\ &amp;= |z_1|^2 - 2|z_1||z_2| + |z_2|^2 \\ &amp;= (|z_1| - |z_2|)^2. \end{split}$$  Taking the square root of both sides gives $|z_1|-|z_2| \leq |z_1-z_2|$  Can I just take the norm of both sides so that $||z_1|-|z_2|| \leq ||z_1-z_2|| = |z_1-z_2|$?  Thank you. Does moving leave the object in a usable state? Having recently reviewed a few suggested edits, I've found that not being able to see the comments on the post is hindering my understanding of the context of some edits.  In particular, there have been a few posts where someone has made a substantial edit to a question or answer which significantly alters its meaning. Typically I'd reject that as "too radical", since it can't be known that the new meaning of the post was what the original author intended.  However, in some cases it is clear from the comments that the original author is aware of the intended change, and as such the editor is not in fact misrepresenting the author's intentions. In these cases, it would have been useful to see the comments when making the review decision.  As an example, a common cause of this is when an inexperienced user is asked to clarify their question, and ends up writing a comment that would be better off as an edit to the question (due to length, excess code content, etc), presumably due to lack of awareness that the question can be edited. Often, other users will helpfully edit the question to include the information the OP put in the comment (see ,  and  for examples). In this situation, it is clear that the edit reflects the OP's intentions, but this information is only present in the comments which are not visible in the review interface.  Following is the suggested edit screen showing the suggested edit. It seems indentation is increased and one line is moved a few lines upwards and some empty lines added to increase readability. But it look like an invalid edit since changing the related line may cause alteration on the runtime. So not looks lie a valid edit. Better open the answer and examine it        Checking the Q&amp;A itself reveals that a talk had taken place between the OP and the answerer and revision done by the OP with the permission of the answerer. So it was indeed a valid edit.        In short: is there any particular reason comments are not displayed in the suggested edit review interface? I think it would add useful contextual information when making review decisions, and presumably this would be trivial to implement.  Note: this is not a dupe of , as it does not concern comments posted after the suggested edit. How can I verify the following statement?     The image of a morphism $f : A \longrightarrow B$ is defined as $\text{Im}(f) = \text{Ke}r(\text{coke}r f)$ whenever it exists (e.g., in every abelian category). The morphism $f : A \longrightarrow B$ factors   uniquely through $\text{Im} f \longrightarrow B$ whenever $\text{Im} f$ exists, and $A \longrightarrow \text{Im} f$ is an epimorphism and a cokernel of ker $f \longrightarrow A$ in every abelian category. Now that I've reached 2k on Stack Overflow, I get access to the "Suggested Edits" review queue.  Although I only have 20 edits per day, the "suggested edit awaiting" icon in the top bar is always there and it bothers me a lot!  My suggestion is to apply one of three solutions:   Remove the suggested edits icon when we reach the maximum (50) edits Remove the Highlight (orange) on the suggested edits Remove the suggested edits part when we click on it   What do you think? Show that if $f(z)$ is an entire function such that it takes real values on the lines $Im(z)=0$ and $Im(z)=a$ (for some $a \in \mathbb{R}_{\neq 0})$, then $f$ is periodic with period $2 i a$.    So here is my thought process: First of all by reflection principle $f(\bar{z})=\overline{f(z)}$ so if our function $f$ is given in the strip $0 \leq Im(z) \leq a$, then its values on $-a \leq Im(z) \leq a$ follow by reflection principle. Then by imposing $f(z)=f(z+2 ia)$ we can intuitively see that this will define an entire function by looking at how the strips $na \leq Im(z) \leq 2na$ seamlessly stack on top of each other. Is this logical? And how would one prove this analytically? I'm learning how to use the mirror modifier and I am having some trouble.  When I apply the modifier to my object I don't see a mirrored version of it.  What am I doing wrong? Compute $ \lim\limits_{n \to \infty }\sin \sin \dots\sin n$ Divisibility by 7 rule, and Congruence Arithmetic Laws Checking the maximality of a principal ideal in $R[x]$ Let $R = \mathbb{Z}_{(2)}$ be the localization of $\mathbb{Z}$ at the prime ideal generated by $2$ in $\mathbb{Z}$. Then prove that the ideal generated by $(2x-1)$ is maximal in $R[x]$. What is the difference between "Redirection" and "Pipe"? This question may sound a bit stupid, but I can not really see the difference between redirection and pipes.  Redirection is used to redirect the stdout/stdin/stderr, e.g. ls &gt; log.txt.  Pipes are used to give the output of a command as input to another command, e.g. ls | grep file.txt.  But why are there two operators for the same thing?  Why not just write ls &gt; grep to pass the output through, isn't this just a kind of redirection also? What I am missing? Note that this is not the same as:   Mistagged questions should be retaggable immediately.