Views changefilter/argument when no results occur
Conditionally run a view if another view has no results
why can't `_` be exported to the environment of bash? In bash, why can't _ be exported to the environment of the shell?  $ export _ $ export | grep _= $   output nothing. Or do I miss something?   How can I export _ into the environment?  See also . Thanks. Does the hom-tensor adjunction hold for $O_X$ modules also? With sheaf hom and sheaf tensor product, the statement would consist of a natural transformation $Hom_O (M \otimes_O N, K)\cong_{nat} Hom_O(M, Hom_O(N, K))$, $O = O_X$ is the structure sheaf and $M,N,K$ are sheaves of $O_X$ modules.  If true I think I can check this by hand, by describing sheaves in terms of compatible germs, defining this adjunction on the germs and checking that they glue together. It is easier in the quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme case because then one can just work in an affine cover and the distinguished base.  I am little bit concerned that one might need a finite presentation hypothesis somewhere, in order for $Hom$ to localize well. ($Hom_{R[S^{-1}]}(M[S^{-1}], N[S^{-1}]) \cong Hom_R(M,N)[S^{-1}]$ needs $M$ finitely presented.) Please stop bounties from turning off community moderation Possible Duplicate:                tl;dr: Please get rid of "This question has an open bounty and cannot be closed"  Questions with bounties on them can't be closed:    This is by design, and the recommended course of action is to flag for moderator attention, at which point they'll decide whether to refund the bounty and close the question or not.   But why should a bounty disable regular community moderation?  We should be able to cast close votes on bountied questions as usual, and if a question gets enough, the bounty's refunded and the question closed.  An obvious benefit would be reduced burden on moderators, but I doubt that this is really a significant part of their workload.  More important is allowing the entire community's wisdom to be brought to bear.  Consider this question:      Having a simple MFC application with web browser controller that navigates to some site and then to another one on and on.      Using a powerfull machine (16 cores and lots of memory) OS is Server 2008 R2. I can see when launching my app over 30 instances I'm getting the OS UI (each window including my app, mspaint, taskmgr etc..) become very sluggish and slow.      I have monitored the machine resources (CPU, memory and GDI objects) but it seems that all of them are not even close to be in some level of stress.      What is the problematic resource that influence the machine in such way?      10x, Guy   It doesn't look like a good question: somewhat poorly written, vague, not a ton of information, etc.  I would vote to close this question.  However, I don't do much work with MFC and maybe there's something I'm missing.  (I can readily imagine a similarly bad looking question with the extremely concrete answer: .)  I'm comfortable casting a vote to close, not closing unilaterally.  Flagging for a moderator just passes the buck to them, when the correct action is letting the community weigh in. Cannot see files in my external HDD How to make blocks in spawn unbreakable in survival? So on my multiplayer server on Minecraft Education Edition I can't seem to figure out how to make the blocks in spawn unbreakable. I know adventure mode fixes that but it's a survival world. I don't want them in adventure, so how do I make the blocks in spawn unbreakable? Why do we let hostile users dictate the perception of Stack Overflow? How can I copy coverart from flac to opus with ffmpeg I am trying to convert some flac files which all have coverart embedded to opus with ffmpeg. All but the coverart gets copied over just fine, but I find myself unable to move the cover over as well. Tried all sorts of -mapmetadata stuff I could find so far, but no luck, the result is always missing the coverart.  While the original .flac reports to have a video stream with the coverart  Duration: 00:02:53.51, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 910 kb/s    Stream #0:0: Audio: flac, 44100 Hz, stereo, s16    Stream #0:1: Video: mjpeg, yuvj420p(pc, bt470bg/unknown/unknown), 500x500 [SAR 1:1 DAR 1:1], 90k tbr, 90k tbn, 90k tbc   the created opus files does not have any graphics:  size=    2815kB time=00:02:53.51 bitrate= 132.9kbits/s speed= 104x video:0kB audio:2793kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead: 0.811556%   I tried -vcodec copy, -mapmetadata 0, -mapmetadata 0:s:0 so far, with no luck. Doesnt seem to have anything todo with opus, as I have the same problem converting to aac.  So is there a way to get the cover out of the flac file and move it over to the new file in on go using ffmpeg, or do I have to extract it first and then glue it back again later to the new file with extra commands? Allowing a group Read-Write Access to a directory Validity of work-energy theorem in presence of non-conservative forces? A fly in an accelerating car A fly is flying around in a car, the fly never touches any surface in the car only fly’s around in the air inside the car. The car accelerates. does the fly slam in to the rear window. or does the fly continue to fly uninterrupted? I know that its is the possessive and it's is the contraction, and know when to use them.  But why doesn't the possessive have an apostrophe?   "The bear's eating a fish." [contraction] "The bear's coat is brown." [possessive] "It's eating a fish." [contraction] "Its coat is brown." [possessive] "One's eating a fish." [contraction] "One's coat is brown." [possessive]    lists the etymology as "From  +‎ ", and  says that this is actually the original form:     Originally written it's, and still deliberately spelled thus by some writers until early 1800s.   So what happened to the apostrophe?  When did people stop using it, and why did they?  It seems that it's as the possessive is more natural, as most people do this until they're taught that it is wrong (or even after).  Update: Online Etymology Dictionary has been updated to include two potential explanations:     The apostrophe came to be omitted, perhaps because it's already was established as a contraction of it is, or by general habit of omitting apostrophes in personal pronouns (hers, yours, theirs, etc.).   Can anyone back up either of these arguments?  The possessive one's still has the apostrophe, despite these. How to adjust the breaking in the bibliography? How did we 'discover' dark matter? I'm an astrophysics student and I've been researching this topic and there is one point that keeps eluding me.  How did the scientific community realize that there had to be  in the Universe? My new 1,5 TB ext4 Hard Disk makes mysterious noises and fails to read and write. But not always. Sometimes it just works. But then I get those following errors. Does anyone know a solution for that or is my new WD Caviar Black 1.5 TB hard disk broken?  [  551.162286] ata7: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310) [  551.162294] ata7.00: link offline, clearing class 1 to NONE [  551.178223] ata7: EH complete [  551.190802] ata7: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x4040000 action 0xe frozen [  551.190807] ata7: irq_stat 0x00000040, connection status changed [  551.190811] ata7: SError: { CommWake DevExch } [  551.190818] ata7: limiting SATA link speed to 1.5 Gbps [  551.190822] ata7: hard resetting link   Update Mainboard P7P55D LE: "Distribution worker" vs. "distributed worker" I cannot differentiate the meanings of the two words. Could you please clarify?   In general, when should I use a noun (distribution) or an adjective (distributed) for verbs similar to distribute, like organize, create? Question. Let $M = \left\{ \begin{bmatrix} a &amp; b \\ -b &amp; a \end{bmatrix} \,\middle\vert\,  a, b \in \mathbb R \right\}$.  Show that $(M,+)$ and $(\mathbb C,+)$ are isomorphic.  Show that $(M^{*},*)$ and $(\mathbb C^{*},*)$ are isomorphic.    (Here, $M^{*}$ is defined as excluding the zero-element) I understand that there exists an isomorphism $\phi:M \rightarrow\mathbb C$ defined by $\begin{bmatrix} \alpha &amp; \beta \\ -\beta &amp; \alpha \end{bmatrix}\mapsto \alpha+i\beta$, ie. I can show that $\phi(M_{1}+M_{2}) = \phi(M_{1})+\phi(M_{2})$ and $\phi(M_{1}*M_{2}) = \phi(M_{1})*\phi(M_{2})$. However, I'm unsure how to go about the two subquestions seperately. In Fringe's season 1, the episode  (1x13) shows how  travels on VertusAir flight 718. We witness how he develops some strange symptoms, withdraws into a lavatory and transforms into a porcupine-like monster.  At the end of season 3, Peter "switches" the timeline (changing the past and making the present continue in a different timeline henceforth) from blue- to orange-verse. Various statements throughout the 4th season indicate time (the date) was not reset; Olivia and Walter have been working on Fringe cases for some three years etc. - hence it is safe to say that season 4 plays 3 years after season 1.  Then, in the episode  (4x16), the events from 1x13 happen again, up to the point of Bowman's transformation, which this time doesn't happen (not aboard the plane, anyway). As far as I can tell, great care was taken to exactly recreate the events from the season 1 episode, including hiring the same actors to play the flight attendants once again ( and ), so obviously this is supposed to be the same event with slight changes.  Peter, as well as Olivia - who is in the process of regaining her memories from the blue-verse -, remember the events from 1x13 and note the difference that Bowman's transformation happened later this time, implying that in the orange-verse, everything related to flight 718 played out the same way, except for the small difference that the transformation happened a bit later.  BUT ... all of this happened 3 years later!! Is there any explanation for this?  How unlikely is it that in the orange-verse timeline, Marshall Bowman is on the very same flight with the very same flight attendants 3 years after the same would have happened in the blue-verse? Mind you, this is not a "small change" in the course of events while mostly everything else stays the same.  So, why did Peter and Olivia realize the transformation happened a tad later in the orange-verse timeline, but were not baffled by the fact that essentially the same events as in the blue-verse happened, but three years later?  EDIT: Not only the flight and the flight attendants were the same in both episodes. The passenger next to Bowman was the same, an elderly lady played by  both times, as well. Moreover, the transcripts of  and  reveal that the dialogue between Bowman, the passenger next to him, and the cabin crew is the same down to the lines of text until the moment of transformation.  Interestingly, the announcement by the captain in the beginning seems to be different - starting the inflight movie + selling headsets vs. circling before beginning the final descent + selling snacks. On the other hand, this could be presumed to be a slight retcon, as in 4x16, it was crucial for the plot that the plane would be close to landing, and starting the inflight movie would not make much sense right before landing. Software was blocked from opening because it is not from an identified developer I went to run LibreOffice on my OS X 10.9 and it would not let me install it. It said it was from an unidentified developer. I'm aware of the security features of the Mac and went to System Preferences to allow the software to run.   When I opened this setting I saw a button that said, '"LibreOffice" was blocked from opening because it is not from an identified developer.' and there was a button next to it that said "Open Anyway". I clicked this button and nothing happened. I clicked it multiple times, like a hundred, out of frustration. Is there something else I need to do? Could someone verify this is not a bug?   UPDATE: I've included the photo below of what my System Preferences screen looked like and the button I pushed that didn't work.  UPDATE II: So I tried opening the application again and went into the system preferences and pressed the "Open Anyway" button again and nothing happened at first but a few minutes later while I was typing an email something flashed across my screen, possibly another dialog (or more likely a chewpacabra), but it quickly disappeared and the next thing I know LibreOffice launched! This question follow's JeffE's comment :     In most industries, a PhD has negative value.   I am curious about what potential negatives there may be with having a PhD, particularly in industries.  For example, my PhD has applications for image sensors, and the potential of working in that field is appealing—would having a PhD be a potential barrier? Would it be a case of how explicit the practicalities of the PhD can be made?  Would this make any difference? Uniform continuity of $f(x) = x \sin{\frac{1}{x}}$ for $x \neq 0$ and $f(0) = 0.$ For the $f(x) = x \sin{\frac{1}{x}}$ for $x \neq 0$ and $f(0) = 0,$ my text book asks the following questions.  (b) Why is $f$ uniformly continuous on any bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}$?   (c) Is $f$ uniformly continuous on $\mathbb{R}$??  The graph for the function is this.    For the question (b), if I take subset between $[0.2,0.6]$ or the subset where the slope is steep, I don't think the function is uniformly continuous because I think for a given $\epsilon&gt;0$, there is no unique $\delta &gt;0$ for the bounded subset. Therefore, it also cannot be uniformly continuous on $\mathbb{R}.$ However, the questions sounds like the function is uniformly continuous and the book says that it is uniformly continuous. The answer on the book says something but I need more explanation. Thanks.