Payload error while deploy Address settings (State & Country picklists)
deploying and retrieving Address settings (State & Country picklists)
Quadratic Formula in Complex Variables Looking for a short story about a man who is visiting a planet where you get your position/job through playing a game I read this story 8-15 years ago in German. I'm not sure but I think the book had 2 short, totally different stories in it.  The story was about a man who was sent (I think kinda forced to go) to a planet where he should play a game everyone on that planet plays. I think the goal was to beat their leader and conquer the world like this?  The better you are at the game, the higher is your position in the society. I remember that at the end he was playing against the leader and they had a long back and forth game, but I'm not sure who won.  They played the game on a different planet that had only one stripe of forest around the whole planet and a fire that goes around it. But thats only the location they were playing.  The man was chosen because he was the best player in every game if I remember correctly.  The game was a board like game where you have troops or armies that you move around. It was not an easy game everyone just could play. I think we all understand the necessity of delete when reassigning a dynamically-allocated pointer in order to prevent memory leaks. However, I'm curious, to what extent does the C++ mandate the usage of delete? For example, take the following program  int main() {      int* arr = new int[5];      return 0; }   While for all intents and purposes no leak occurs here (since your program is ending and the OS will clean up all memory once it returns), but does the standard still require -- or recommend -- the usage of delete[] in this case? If not, would there be any other reason why you would delete[] here? Splitting of prime ideals in algebraic extensions Cosmological constant doubts Proving that $\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{(-1)^k}{{n\choose k}}=[1+(-1)^n] \frac{n+1}{n+2}.$ This appears to be related to the behavior originally suggested in .  It appears to be the same issue raised in , but this post has specific steps to reproduce the issue.  Here's what happened on one site in the network earlier today:   A question was posted much earlier Someone came along, and as an unregistered, new user with no other activity, posted a spam answer to that question at 04:36:54 UTC That same user posted a comment on their own answer with the same spam link at 04:37:31 UTC The answer was deleted as spam via community votes at 07:32:07 UTC A high-rep user saw the comment and raised a custom flag on it as being spammy at 07:32:54 UTC The unregistered user account was destroyed by a moderator at 08:13:10 UTC The comment now shows as "deleted by Anonymous" with a deletion time of 08:13:10 UTC The flag on the comment remains, but the only options are "Edit" and "Decline"; there is no "Delete" action   That there is no "Delete" action possible on the flag is reasonable, since the comment is now deleted. However, the flag is/was legitimate, so to decline the flag would be wrong. There's also nothing to leave while editing out the spammy part of the comment, as the comment consists solely of the same spam URL.  There is also no undelete option on the comment, so it's not possible to undelete the comment and then mark the flag as helpful by re-deleting the comment.  Effectively, this means that while the comment itself is effectively gone, the flag on it is in limbo and there is no good choice for what to do with the flag.  When deleting comments normally, my understanding is that any flags associated with those comments are automatically marked as helpful. However, it appears that the deletion of comments when destroying the user who posted them does not do that.  Therefore, I suggest that whenever comments are deleted as part of the owning user being destroyed, any pending flags against those comments should be marked as helpful at the same time.  It would also be a nice touch if those comments showed as deleted by Community♦, instead of Anonymous, but that's less of a concern in my case. Why is charge of the electron negative? Finding the ID of a process and killing it When ever I need to kill a background process I do ps -e | grep &lt;process_name&gt;  Which prints something like this 1766 ? 00:00:13 conky , Then I use the process ID to kill it like so kill 1766 .   Is there any way I can simplify this ? Make it quicker ? reduce the amount of typing ? Light is clearly affected by gravity, just think about a black hole, but light supposedly has no mass and gravity only affects objects with mass.  On the other hand, if light does have mass then doesn't mass become infinitely larger the closer to the speed of light an object travels. So this would result in light have an infinite mass which is impossible.  Any explanations? How to construct a relative path in Java from two absolute paths (or URLs)? I have heard several times that some mathematician has given another and more rigorous for an established theorem, but I don't know what does it really mean and what differences makes it to be more 'rigorous'. My understanding of a proof is that a proof is some explanation to convincing others that a statement is true. If some proof is not rigorous, does it mean that while the proof is acceptable for many but it is not for everybody? If so, the proof is not correct since it going to be rejected by some people and it is not a proof at all. Or, does rigorous mean it uses more advanced tools? If so, why not any alternative (but simpler) proof is also acceptable as rigorous (which is more 'valuable' as well since it's simpler!)?   Saying those limited insight of mine, my questions are:   $1-$ What does rigorous proof mean, in general definition?  $2-$ In order to understand your answers, as an example I am re-writing three of the proofs for the compactness of the torus. Which of the following proofs are most rigorous, 'normal' and least rigorous; and why so?    Theorem: The torus $T^2$ is compact.  First proof: The torus is homeomorphic to the product space $S^1 \times S^1$. The circle $S^1$ is compact. Therefore the torus is the product of two compact spaces, and thus it is compact.   Second proof: The torus $T$ is the subspace of $\mathbb{R}^3$ obtained by rotating a circle about the $z$-axis. The torus is closed since given any point in its complement, there is an open ball of sufficiently small radius centered at that point and disjoint from the torus. Also, the torus is bounded since it is contained in the ball of radius $4$ centered at the origin. Since the torus is closed and bounded in $\mathbb{R}^3$, it is compact.   Third proof: The torus is homeomorphic to a space obtained as a quotient  space of the square by identifying opposite edges. The square is a closed and  bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$ and therefore is compact. Furthermore, a quotient map on the square is a continuous function, and the image of a compact space under a continuous function is compact. Therefore the torus is compact.   Thanks a lot for your guidance. Why was Severus Snape placed in Slytherin? Find a formula for Taylor series of $\left(\frac{1}{1+z^2}\right)^n$ So the way I think I should approach this is by getting a result for $n=1,2,3...$  and then examine them. I could easily get the Taylor series expansion for $n=1$, but then I don't really know how to proceed, because I can't always break down a power of a polynomial. And a power of a summation doesn't seem as a legit answer either.   Can anyone help? Thanks Unable to change payment information to NONE in iOS Appstore I've just started playing with Guice, and a use-case I can think of is that in a test I just want to override a single binding.  I think I'd like to use the rest of the production level bindings to ensure everything is setup correctly and to avoid duplication.  So imagine I have the following Module  public class ProductionModule implements Module {     public void configure(Binder binder) {         binder.bind(InterfaceA.class).to(ConcreteA.class);         binder.bind(InterfaceB.class).to(ConcreteB.class);         binder.bind(InterfaceC.class).to(ConcreteC.class);     } }   And in my test I only want to override InterfaceC, while keeping InterfaceA and InterfaceB in tact, so I'd want something like:  Module testModule = new Module() {     public void configure(Binder binder) {         binder.bind(InterfaceC.class).to(MockC.class);     } }; Guice.createInjector(new ProductionModule(), testModule);   I've also tried the following, with no luck:  Module testModule = new ProductionModule() {     public void configure(Binder binder) {         super.configure(binder);         binder.bind(InterfaceC.class).to(MockC.class);     } }; Guice.createInjector(testModule);   Does anyone know if it's possible to do what I want or am I completely barking up the wrong tree??  --- Follow up: It would seem I can achieve what I want if I make use of the @ImplementedBy tag on the interface and then just provide a binding in the test case, which works nicely when there is a 1-1 mapping between the interface and implementation.  Also, after discussing this with a colleague it would seem we'd head down the road of overriding an entire module and ensuring we have our modules defined correctly.  This seems like it might cause a problem though where a binding is misplaced in a module and needs to be moved, thus possibly breaking a load of tests as bindings may no longer be available to be overriden. $\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1+z^n}$, $|z|&gt;1$.  There are two facts that my professor uses that I am confused about.  The first is: $|1+z^n| \geq ||z|^n-1|$, I believe this is true for any $|z|$.  The other is: $\frac{1}{|z|^n-1} \leq \frac{2}{|z|^n}$, I believe this is also true for any $|z|$.  Can anyone prove these statements for me? In electromagnetism, why does nature prefer the right-hand rule over the left-hand rule? How do I remove any Ubuntu brand and trademark from my Ubuntu install? I read a novel where several enemy alien species were stranded together on an interdicted planet.  They had to recycle everything and keep hidden. By "keep hidden" I mean make sure there is no evidence of their presence visible from space. They recycled everything and lived in camouflaged dwellings.  The younger generation was building a mixed culture community until the older home species showed up.  One of the alien races had a body made of rings or donuts of gases that mixed to express itself. Members of this species could be taken over and controlled by rings transferred from another member of the species.  The book may be 20 years old or more.