`sort` disregards question mark
Is gnu coreutils sort broken?
I have a bunch of SD cards that do not have the little plastic switch for the read only setting. so Windows thinks it’s write protected or something. The card is not write protected by the software lock present on the SD card standard.  I’m using one with tape over the notch and it’s ugly. Also, the Thinkpad slot drags on the tape all the time so I’m afraid it will might loose in there eventually.  So, is there any way to tell Windows to ignore this lame write-protect feature?  I’m not interested on the SD card itself as it’s irrelevant for the issue at hand. Read this question as being about a 5.25” floppy disk drive instead of an SD card if you wish. I’m pretty sure the Windows settings are the same for both, really.  I’m  that there are 3 ways to secure an SD card. I’m talking about only the mechanical switch, which is the responsibility of the host to handle. the converse of Pythagoras Theorem Determinant of a specially structured matrix ($a$'s on the diagonal, all other entries equal to $b$) How to calculate last four digits of $2^{2017}$? can u suggest me any short trick of solving these kind of problems. How to find last four digits of any number raised to some power ? Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? I use tikz (and tikzpicture) a fair bit, but files that used to compile fine before the latest slew of updates to pgf, and pstricks, no longer seem to do so (at least, on my MikTeX installation). The MWE (below) seems to compile correctly, but the DVI can't be rendered using yap, and dvi -> ps -> pdf fails (the dvi -> ps seems to be ok -- to the extent it isn't throwing errors), but ps2pdf fails miserably, with the following errors:   Error: /undefined in XC@.  Operand stack:    --nostringval--   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   -  -nostringval--   --nostringval-- Execution stack: %interp_exit   .runexec2   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   --  nostringval--   2   %stopped_push   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   --  nostringval--   false   1   %stopped_push   2045   1   3   %oparray_pop    2044   1   3   %oparray_pop   2025   1   3   %oparray_pop   1884   1   3    %oparray_pop   --nostringval--   %errorexec_pop   .runexec2   --nostringval-  -   --nostringval--   --nostringval--   2   %stopped_push   --nostringval-- Dictionary stack:   --dict:979/1684(ro)(G)--   --dict:1/20(G)--   --dict:87/200(L)--   --    dict:182/300(L)--   --dict:58/200(L)--   Current allocation mode is local   Current file position is 99615   GPL Ghostscript 9.26: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1   Here is the MWE:  \documentclass[12pt,letterpaper,oneside]{article}  \usepackage{tikz}  \usetikzlibrary{decorations,shapes,arrows,matrix,positioning}  \begin{document}  \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[x=0.175cm,y=0.175cm,scale=1]  % set up maximum and minimum x- and y-coordinates \def\xmin{0} \def\xmax{23.5} \def\ymin{0} \def\ymax{23.5}  % draw and label axes    \draw[-&gt;,thick] (\xmin,0) -- (\xmax,0) node[below=8pt,near end]  {\small{abundance ($N$)}};   \draw[-&gt;,thick] (0,\ymin) -- (0,\ymax) node[above=12pt,near   start,rotate=90] { \small{birth rate ($b$)}};  % draw vertical reference line at K/2=50   \draw[color=black, thick,  smooth] (0,20) -- (20,0)  node[below=6pt,midway,rotate=-45] {\small{slope~$=a$}};  % draw circle around point where function intersects x-axis \draw [red] (0,20)  ellipse (0.2cm and 0.2cm) node[right=3pt,black] {$b_0$};   \end{tikzpicture}  \end{center}   \end{document} Why do I get different outputs in case of sh and bash? Is there a continuous bijection from $[0,1]$ onto $[0,1] \times [0,1]$? That is with $I=[0,1]$ and $S=[0,1] \times [0,1]$, is there a continuous bijection $$ f: I \to S? $$  I know there is a continuous bijection $g:C \to I$ from the Cantor set $C$ to $[0,1]$. The square $S$ is compact so there is a continuous function  $$ h: C \to S. $$ But this leads nowhere. Is there a way to construct such an $f$?  I ask because I have a continuous functional $F:S \to \mathbb R$. For numerical reason, I would like to convert it into the functional $$ G: I \to \mathbb R, \\ G = F \circ f , $$ so that $G$ is continuous. My processor is 64-bit - does that mean I need the amd64 image? OK guys I have this problem:  For $x,y,p,q&gt;0$ and $ \frac {1} {p} + \frac {1}{q}=1 $ prove that $ xy \leq\frac{x^p}{p} + \frac{y^q}{q}$  It says I should use Jensen's inequality, but I can't figure out how to apply it in this case. Any ideas about the solution? Traverse a list in reverse order in Python So I can start from len(collection) and end in collection[0].  I also want to be able to access the loop index. Can you trip as part of a Tome of Battle Maneuver? If a ToB Maneuver such as Daunting Strike calls for a melee Attack as part of the maneuver, can this melee attack be resolved as a trip attack/include a trip attempt? It is well known that compactness implies pseudocompactness; this follows from . I know that the converse does not hold, but what is a counterexample?  (A  is a topological space $S = \langle X,{\mathfrak I}\rangle$ such that every continuous function $f:S\to\Bbb R$ has bounded range.) I'd like to know your opinion on citations in abstracts. At my university, there is no rule on that matter so it's basically a question of preference.  Do you think it's okay to have citations in an abstract or do you  personally prefer to have the abstract be a ``stand-alone'' piece of  work? Socket Tester all indicators light up I used the above GFCI/RCD (up to 250v) socket tester on the 240v black and red live wire of the US split phase ac power system. When I connect the ground, all indicator lights (3 red) got on indicating "Live/Grd Reverse, Missing GRD" although it is connected properly.  What is inside the socket tester? Does it have a live and neutral leg such that it should only be used for ac system with polarity? How about if you use it on the red and black 240v phase to phase? Why would all the indicators light become on (3 red lights)?  The following is the specs of it:  Specifications: Brand Name: HABOTEST Color: Black Material: Flame Retardant ABS Plug Type: US Voltage: 48V-250V 45-65Hz RCD Test: >30mA (EU/UK Plug) RCD Working Voltage: 220V±20V GFCI Test: >5mA (US Plug) GFCI Working Voltage: 110V±20V Voltage Measurement: 48V~250V / 45~65Hz    Accuracy: ±(2.0%+2) Working Environment: 0°C ~ 40°C, 20% ~75%RH Storage Environment: -10°C ~ 50°C, 20% ~80%RH Safety Rating: EN61010-1,-2-030, EN61326-1,CAT II 300V Item Size: 62 * 65 * 55mm / 2.4 * 2.6 * 2.2in Item Weight: UK 64g/2.3oz, EU 59g/2.1oz, US 53g / 1.9oz Package Size: 7.5 * 7.4 * 7.3cm / 3.0 * 2.9 * 2.9in Package Weight: UK 90g/3.2oz, EU 86g/3.0oz, US 79g / 2.8oz E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages What is wrong with this proof?    Is $\pi=4?$ Any idea why the piece of code below does not add the script element to the DOM?  var code = "&lt;script&gt;&lt;/script&gt;"; $("#someElement").append(code); Can anyone explain how we choose one sock from each of finitely many pairs without the axiom of choice?  I mean : To choose one sock from each of infinitely many pairs of socks requires the Axiom of Choice, but for shoes the Axiom is not needed.  The idea is that the two socks in a pair are identical in appearance, and so we must make an arbitrary choice if we wish to choose one of them. For shoes, we can use an explicit algorithm -- e.g., "always choose the left shoe." Why does Russell's statement mention infinitely many pairs? Well, if we only have finitely many pairs of socks, then AC is not needed -- we can choose one member of each pair using the definition of "nonempty," and we can repeat an operation finitely many times using the rules of formal logic (not discussed here). Shutdown button only logs out ubuntu 15.04