How can I add arial to the fonts used by software?
How can I accept the Microsoft EULA agreement for ttf-mscorefonts-installer?
I have a requirement for a custom app I am building to open an attachment on the parent record in a new window on create of a child record.  I have parent object Quality_Assessment__c with child object Chart_Review__c. Quality_Assessment__c has a PDF attached to it in the Notes &amp; Attachments section. When a user clicks to create a new Chart_Review__c record I need to have the PDF attachment on the Quality_Assessment__c record open in a new tab as well as the record create page for the Chart_Review__c record. Looking for help in generating the needed javascript for a custom button to accomplish this.  The 'Quality_Assessment__c' record will have a PDF file attached to it prior to the user clicking the 'New Chart Review' button.  My use case is to have users open the 'Quality_Assessment__c' record and perform what we call a Chart Review. To perform the Chart Review the user would click on a custom button called 'New Chart Review' which would do two things.   create a new 'Chart_Review__c' record displaying the new record edit page  open the PDF attachment from the related 'Quality_Assessment__c' record.    Preferably on click of the button the new record page would open in existing tab and a new tab with the PDF would open simultaneously. What is a good Photoshop book for photographers? I am interested in not too basic techniques (which I can more or less figure out by myself), which on the other hand give good results, without the need to be an expert pro. Is const_cast safe? I can't find much information on const_cast.  The only info I could find (on Stack Overflow) is:     The const_cast&lt;&gt;() is used to add/remove const(ness) (or volatile-ness) of a variable.   This makes me nervous.  Could using a const_cast cause unexpected behavior?  If so, what?  Alternatively, when is it okay to use const_cast? In a family with two children, what are the chances, if one of the children is a girl, that both children are girls?  I just dipped into a book, The Drunkard's Walk - How Randomness Rules Our Lives, by Leonard Mlodinow, Vintage Books, 2008. On p.107 Mlodinow says the chances are 1 in 3.   It seems obvious to me that the chances are 1 in 2. Am I correct? Is this not exactly analogous to having a bowl with an infinite number of marbles, half black and half red? Without looking I draw out a black marble. The probability of the second marble I draw being black is 1/2. How do I delete a board in Trello? Prove: $|a\sin x+b \cos x|\leq \sqrt{a^2+b^2}$ Cookie blocked/not saved in IFRAME in Internet Explorer I have two websites, let's say they're example.com and anotherexample.net. On anotherexample.net/page.html, I have an IFRAME SRC="http://example.com/someform.asp". That IFRAME displays a form for the user to fill out and submit to http://example.com/process.asp. When I open the form ("someform.asp") in its own browser window, all works well. However, when I load someform.asp as an IFRAME in IE 6 or IE 7, the cookies for example.com are not saved. In Firefox this problem doesn't appear.  For testing purposes, I've created a similar setup on  .  example.com uses cookie-based sessions (and there's nothing I can do about that), so without cookies, process.asp won't execute. How do I force IE to save those cookies?  Results of sniffing the HTTP traffic: on GET /someform.asp response, there's a valid per-session Set-Cookie header (e.g. Set-Cookie: ASPKSJIUIUGF=JKHJUHVGFYTTYFY), but on POST /process.asp request, there is no Cookie header at all.  Edit3: some AJAX+serverside scripting is apparently capable to sidestep the problem, but that looks very much like a bug, plus it opens a whole new set of . I don't want my applications to use a combination of bug+security hole just because it's easy.  Edit: the P3P policy was the root cause, full explanation below. Vector Applications in Euclidean Geometry Is the trace of inverse matrix convex? Code for looping through all excel files in a specified folder, and pulling data from specific cells Windows 8.1 Keeps Turning Off Automatic Updates My OS keeps turning off automatic Windows updates without even logging off or restarting the computer.  Action center icon in the task bar warns me about choosing an option for Windows update as if I haven't chosen countless times already.  It started to get really annoying to keep choosing a Windows update option 5 - 10 times a day.   I really appreciate any help you can provide on this matter.  Things I have tried so far;   I have tried  suggested by . Unfortunately didn't help my case Tried following commands; reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\Auto Update" /v AUOptions /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f  and then sc config wuauserv start= auto as suggested . Googling. Tried few suggestions which didn't help my case. In the NEW CANON why don't the Rebels abandon Yavin 4 before the Death Star Arrives? What is the smallest convex set includes all smooth unit curves? I try to understand: is there a smallest in area convex set that every smooth curve with length 1 can be placed inside it by translation and rotation?  I only have a upper bound $S \leq \frac14+\frac{\pi}{16}$ because of convex hull of two circles radius $\frac14$ and simple lower bound $S\geq\frac1{4\pi}$.  Does this set exist and what is its length? Why energy curves spacetime? This  explains how energy curves spacetime. But I would like to know why energy curves spacetime, is there something like particle interaction that produce this result? Why do we use Root Mean Square (RMS) values when talking about AC voltage What makes it a good idea to use RMS rather than peak values of current and voltage when we talk about or compute with AC signals. How to avoid perceived circularity when defining a formal language? Suppose we want to define a first-order language to do set theory (so we can formalize mathematics). One such construction can be found . What makes me uneasy about this definition is that words such as "set", "countable", "function", and "number" are used in somewhat non-trivial manners. For instance, behind the word "countable" rests an immense amount of mathematical knowledge: one needs the notion of a bijection, which requires functions and sets. One also needs the set of natural numbers (or something with equal cardinality), in order to say that countable sets have a bijection with the set of natural numbers.  Also, in set theory one uses the relation of belonging "$\in$". But relation seems to require the notion an ordered pair, which requires sets, whose properties are described using belonging...  I found the following in Kevin Klement's,  (pages 2-3).  "You have to use logic to study logic. There’s no getting away from it. However, I’m not going to bother stating all the logical rules that are valid in the metalanguage, since I’d need to do that in the metametalanguage, and that would just get me started on an infinite regress. The rule of thumb is: if it’s OK in the object language, it’s OK in the metalanguage too."  So it seems that, if one proves a fact about the object language, then one can also use it in the metalanguage. In the case of set theory, one may not start out knowing what sets really are, but after one proves some fact about them (e.g., that there are uncountable sets) then one implicitly "adds" this fact also to the metalanguage.  This seems like cheating: one is using the object language to conduct proofs regarding the metalanguage, when it should strictly be the other way round.  To give an example of avoiding circularity, consider the definition of the integers. We can define a binary relation $R\subseteq(\mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N})\times(\mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N})$, where for any $a,b,c,d\in\mathbf{N}$, $((a,b),(c,d))\in R$ iff $a+d=b+c$, and then defining $\mathbf{Z}:= \{[(a,b)]:a,b\in\mathbf{N}\}$, where $[a,b]=\{x\in \mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N}: xR(a,b)\}$, as in  question or  on Wikipedia. In this definition if set theory and natural numbers are assumed, then there is no circularity because one did not depend on the notion of "subtraction" in defining the integers.  So my question is:     Question Is the definition of first-order logic circular?   If not, please explain why.   If the definitions are circular, is there an alternative definition which avoids the circularity?   Some thoughts:   Perhaps there is the distinction between what sets are (anything that obeys the axioms) and how sets are expressed (using a formal language). In other words, the notion of a set may not be circular, but to talk of sets using a formal language requires the notion of a set in a metalanguage. In foundational mathematics there also seems to be the idea of first defining something, and then coming back with better machinery to analyse that thing. For instance, one can define the natural numbers using the Peano axioms, then later come back to say that all structures satisfying the axioms are isomorphic. (I don't know any algebra, but that seems right.) Maybe sets, functions, etc., are too basic? Is it possible to avoid these terms when defining a formal language? Disabling middle mouse button Using a keyboard shortcut to paste text I know people love to close duplicates so I am not asking for a reference to start learning statistics (as ).   I have a doctorate in mathematics but never learned statistics. What is the shortest route to the equivalent knowledge to a top notch BS statistics degree and how do I measure when I have achieved that.   If a list of books would suffice (assuming I do the exercises lets say), that's terrific. Yes, I expect working out problems to be an implicit part of learning it but I want to fast track as much as realistically possible. I am not looking for an insanely rigorous treatment unless that is part of what statistical majors generally learn. I want to prove that $xe^{-x}$ is bounded by some constant for all the $x \in [0, \infty)$. So I take derivative of this guy, and found that on $x \in [0, \infty)$, its derivative is positive from $[0, 1)$, $0$ at $x=1$, and negative from (1, in infinity). So  $xe^{-x}$ achieves its maximum in $[0, \infty)$ at $x=1$, which is $1/e$. However, to prove that it's bounded by $1/e$, I need to prove that as $x$ goes to infinity, $xe^{-x}$ converges to $0$. Because otherwise, if it went to some value below $(-1/e)$, $xe^{-x}$ would not be bounded by $1/e$. How can I prove that $xe^{-x}$ converges to $0$? I mean, as $x$ goes to infinity, $e^{-x}$ converges to zero, but at the same time, x diverges to infinity. How can I formally prove that the product term converges to $0$? Do I need to use the epsilon definition of convergence to prove it?  Could you just show me the formal proof of $xe^{-x}$ converges to $0$? Or is there's any other way to approach this question? My professor suggested that I should use the power series for $e^{-x}$...?   Your help is greatly appreciated! Thank you so much!  I hope you enjoy your Saturday!