I just want to omit first value of list using a function but below code is returning same list I dont want to return from a fucntion Code:     #! /usr/bin/clisp      (defun omit(lstold)     (setf lstold (cdr lstold)) ) (setq x (list 3 1 2)) (omit x) (write x)  --&gt; gives output 3 1 2 ... why?
I've just started learning Lisp and I can't figure out how to compile and link lisp code to an executable.  I'm using clisp and clisp -c produces two files:   .fas .lib   What do I do next to get an executable?
It is me who am to blame.    It is I who am to blame.      Which one is correct here? I am bewildered about these two sentences. Which B2C option to choose? A stock Salesforce org is geared toward B2B companies, but I work in Higher Ed and we're B2C-focused.  There seem to be three main B2C options available:   Person Accounts Nonprofit Starter Pack (NPSP) 1-to-1 model NPSP bucket model   Why would I choose one option over the other? What is the difference between the displace socket and a bump map? Aside from the fact that you can control the bump mapping per shader with a bump node, are there any differences between these materials?      As far  as I can tell, they are the same. Is the displacement socket just a convenience thing? Is there a performance advantage? MySQL Great Circle Distance (Haversine formula) I've got a working PHP script that gets Longitude and Latitude values and then inputs them into a MySQL query. I'd like to make it solely MySQL. Here's my current PHP Code:  if ($distance != "Any" &amp;&amp; $customer_zip != "") { //get the great circle distance      //get the origin zip code info     $zip_sql = "SELECT * FROM zip_code WHERE zip_code = '$customer_zip'";     $result = mysql_query($zip_sql);     $row = mysql_fetch_array($result);     $origin_lat = $row['lat'];     $origin_lon = $row['lon'];      //get the range     $lat_range = $distance/69.172;     $lon_range = abs($distance/(cos($details[0]) * 69.172));     $min_lat = number_format($origin_lat - $lat_range, "4", ".", "");     $max_lat = number_format($origin_lat + $lat_range, "4", ".", "");     $min_lon = number_format($origin_lon - $lon_range, "4", ".", "");     $max_lon = number_format($origin_lon + $lon_range, "4", ".", "");     $sql .= "lat BETWEEN '$min_lat' AND '$max_lat' AND lon BETWEEN '$min_lon' AND '$max_lon' AND ";     }   Does anyone know how to make this entirely MySQL? I've browsed the Internet a bit but most of the literature on it is pretty confusing. How to filter a dictionary according to an arbitrary condition function? What is the easiest way to resolve apt-get BADSIG GPG errors? I frequently cross this issue, and always have to google for an answer. Does anyone have a permanent fix for BADSIG errors from apt-get?     W: GPG error:    lucid   Release: The following signatures were   invalid: BADSIG 54422A4B98AB5139   Oracle Corporation (VirtualBox archive   signing key) 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. Does it make a difference to CP if you feed candies before or after evolving? When activating the evolution for a caught Pokemon, it seems to amplify the Combat Power (CP). Thus it seems most beneficial to evolve your Pokemon with the highest CP, if you have multiple of the same kind.   But what I am not sure about is whether it makes an efficiency difference if you spend candies and dust to boost CP before evolving, to gain more from the amplification? Or is it more efficient to just evolve without spending, and then using the leftover candies afterwards, since they now give a bigger CP boost per candy?   I only tested with a Rattata so far, which gained +8 CP per candy before evolving, and +15 CP afterwards. I collected no numbers on the amplification efficiency though, and now ran out of materials for further testing.  Or maybe it is a balanced calculation and makes no difference at all? I would love to have some insight on that.    Some data I collected thus far: (GPC = CP gain per candy)  79 CP Weedle (GPC 6) evolved to: 84 CP Kakuna (GPC 6), evolved at 90 CP to: 297 CP Beedrill    Note: The max-CP "half circle" in the profile stayed filled roughly at the same relative position throughout the evolutions. New York is a great place to live. New York is a great place to live in.  I've seen the former usage a lot and I've started wondering what the grammar aspects of it are. The main question I'm asking involves the grammar when the preposition in the end of the sentence is deleted. Is it equally formal or correct to omit it? What are the grammar properties of this? Some more examples of similar usage:  This organisation is a great place to work. This is a great place to stay/sit/study/travel/go.  Just to show that 'live' isn't special in this case. Note: I'd posted the same question  before, but the answers were not satisfying enough (the answers there did not seem to provide the precise grammar aspects of this, those that could be in a serious grammar book), so I'm posting this here to get some more views on the question. I hope it is acceptable. If $\left|z+\frac{2}{z}\right |=2$, then prove that max value of $|z|$ is $\sqrt 3 + 1$ (Corrected version) Then the expression will be  $$|z|+\frac{2}{|z|}\ge 2$$  Solving the quadratic inequality   $$|z|\ge1+i$$ and $$|z|\le1-i$$  I don’t know how to solve further. Please help  Thanks!   this is the corrected version of an identical question asked by me. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused How to scale a tikzpicture including texts? It seems that the scale option scales only the length of lines, but not the size of texts. For instance, 1 and true and not scaled in the following code.  \begin{tikzpicture}[thick, scale=0.6] \draw [dashed] (1,12) -- (11,12); \node[above] at (4,11) {1}; \node[above] at (8,11) {true}; \end{tikzpicture}   Could anyone tell me how to scale everything together within a tikzpicture? Thank you very much!  PS: It is a picture in a presentation with Beamer. Computing Galois Group of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}):\mathbb{Q}$ Galois Group of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}):\mathbb{Q}$ is cumbersome to computing. Is easy to find the all four possible candidates but is cumberstone to show that they are automorphisms:  For multiplication is too long showing that  $f((a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6})(a'+b'\sqrt{2}+c'\sqrt{3}+d'\sqrt{6}))=f(a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6})f(a'+b'\sqrt{2}+c'\sqrt{3}+d'\sqrt{6})$  For some non trivial candidate since the left hand side expands in $16$ terms. What about $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3},\sqrt{5}):\mathbb{Q}$? there are $7$ non trivial candidates and multiplication expands in $64$ terms!   How to do it in a tricker form?  Edit(Let me be more precise in my question):   I know that if $f\in\Gamma(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}):\mathbb{Q})$, then $f(\sqrt{2})=\pm\sqrt{2}$, $f(\sqrt{3})=\pm\sqrt{3}$ so there are $4$ candidates for $\mathbb{Q}$-Automorphisms. Candidates are given by:  $f_1(a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6})=a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6}$  $f_2(a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6})=a-b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}-d\sqrt{6}$  $f_3(a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6})=a+b\sqrt{2}-c\sqrt{3}-d\sqrt{6}$  $f_4(a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6})=a-b\sqrt{2}-c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6}$  But I need to check that they are $\mathbb{Q}$-Automorphisms in $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$. All candidates $f_i$ fixes $\mathbb{Q}$ and is obvious that all preserves sums, $f_1$ obviously preserves product also since is the identity, but is cumberstone to show that $f_i(xy)=f_i(x)_if(y)$ to conclude $f_i\in\Gamma(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}):\mathbb{Q})$. Idiom for a speech with redundant information After reading the great answer for  by @Ben, I am a bit confused by the part &quot; set the relative tail sizes as a control variable, and then you find the formula for the length of the confidence interval conditional on that variable&quot;. I understand this means you need to compute the length of the confidence interval as a function of the relative tail sizes and then minimize the function. However, what exactly is relative tail sizes? Is it the ratio between the areas of the two tails? Also, is there another way to find shortest CI for a given confidence level? For those who are interested, I know there are somewhat relevant results allowing us to compute sample size such that the length of a CI, say 95% CI, does not exceed a certain bound. I have a dual screen setup on my laptop (using 12.04 LTS) using a HDMI connected display. Everything works fine, but everytime I connect/disconnect the cable I have to go to Sound preferences and change the sound output device manually.  Is there any way to change the sound output device on connect/disconnection of cable, so when I connect my display the sound output is set to HDMI and when I disconnect it the sound goes back to laptop speakers? Hey I want to connect the bottom loop with the top loop so that it forms a solid.  I have tried selecting multiple vertices and pressing F but that just creates a large face which I do not want. I have tried using grid fill bu that doesn't work either. The solution that seems to work is by selecting four vertices and pressing F and then selecting the next 4 and pressing F and on and on. That just takes too long. Trying to search for multiple file extensions in command line I am trying to find two extensions in command line but when i do it will only return one of the extensions. can you tell me what I am missing?   Here is my command;  [root]# find /etc -name "*.txt" -o -name "*.log" -type f -mtime +7 -exec echo {} \; Let $S$ be a finite collection of real numbers (not necessarily distinct). If any element of $S$ is removed then the remaining real numbers can be divided into two collections with same size and same sum ; then is it true that all elements of $S$ are equal ?  (I know the result is true if the &quot;reals&quot; are replaced by &quot;integers&quot;.) Can I argue that:  \begin{align} \left(\int_a^b f(x) \,dx\right) \left(\int_c^d g(y) \,dy\right) &amp;= \int_a^b f(x) \int_c^d g(y) \,dy \,dx \\ &amp;= \int_a^b \int_c^d f(x) g(y) \,dy \,dx \end{align}  since the same would be true for a product of finite sums? Why is diamond transparent while graphite is not? Diamond and graphite are both made of the same atom, carbon. Diamond has a tetrahedron structure while graphite has a flat hexagonal structure. Why is diamond transparent while graphite is not (at least not with more than a couple of layers)?