Removing unnecessary whitespace in a J2EE/Struts Application in WebSphere
Strip whitespace from jsp output
What's the easiest way to download all albums from Google Photos? I have around 950 albums at Google Photos.      I want to back them up now, but organised by albums, not by date.   Whenever I create a backup from within Google Photos, the backup splits my photos by date and adds metadata here and there.  What I am doing now is to click on every album, and choose "Download all". But this will take me ages.  Is there a way through Google Drive or another app to have a easier job? How can number of subdirectories and files be determined from the output of using ls -ld command?  I realize that this command only lists the directories. Why singularity in a black hole, and not just "very dense"? Why does there have to be a singularity in a black hole, and not just a very dense lump of matter of finite size? If there's any such thing as granularity of space, couldn't the "singularity" be just the smallest possible size? For fixed $z_i$s inside the unit disc, can we always choose $a_i$s such that $\left|\sum_{i=1}^n a_iz_i\right|<\sqrt3$? Let $z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_n$ be complex number such that $|z_i|&lt;1$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$. Show that we can choose $a_i \in\{-1,1\}$, $i=1,2,\ldots,n$ such that $$\left|\sum_{i=1}^n a_iz_i\right|&lt;\sqrt3.$$ Protect .NET code from reverse engineering? Obfuscation is one way, but it can't protect from breaking the piracy protection security of the application. How do I make sure that the application is not tampered with, and how do I make sure that the registration mechanism can't be reverse engineered?  Also it is possible to convert a C# application to native code, and  is too costly.  C# provides lot of features, and is the ideal language for my code, so writing the whole codebase again in C++ is out of the question.  Secure certificates can be easily removed from the signed assemblies in .NET. Is there any way to create multiple insert statements in a ms-access query? I refer to , which I understand says that the branch points of a nonconstant holomorphic map $F: X \to Y$ between Riemann surfaces $X$ and $Y$, both of which are not necessarily compact, form a discrete subset of range $Y$ of the map $F$. (Not sure if 'connected' is part of the definition of Riemann surfaces in other textbooks, but it is here.) Question 1: Do I understand correctly, and is this indeed true? What else I understand:  $A$ is a discrete subspace/subset (I just assume everything here is the usual subspace topology) of $B$ if and only if every singleton subset of $A$ is open in $A$ if and only if every point of $A$ is isolated.  This overflow question () seems to suggest this is not true but is true if $F$ is proper. However, I'm not sure the definitions of Riemann surface are the same (maybe some answers use definitions where Riemann surfaces are not necessarily connected or something).  2.1. I know $F$ is 'discrete' (meaning that its fibres are discrete; here, i refer to a ): see definition before Lemma 3.1, on p. 7), by Proposition II.3.12, and open, by open mapping theorem, which is Proposition II.3.8, but I'm not sure these help show $F$ is proper or are otherwise helpful. Ostensibly 'discrete' maps don't map discrete subsets to discrete subsets.   This stackexchange question () seems to suggest this is true.  I think this is true if $F$ is injective or at least something like locally injective. (Please don't make me type up all the stuff I did for this part.) However based on the question in (3) and based on the , which I think uses the term 'branch points' to mean the same thing as what Miranda means by 'ramification points' (and thus is different from Miranda's 'branch points'), it seems that no neighbourhood $U$ of a ramification point $p \in U \subseteq X$ of $F$ is such that the restriction $F|_U$ is injective.  Kinda related:    This page () says    Now, the ramification and branch points must form a discrete set  I don't think the page assumes anything like $F$ is proper.  The  text in (2.1) actually seems to assume proper based on the '3.7. Proper holomorphic maps' part, but said part refers to 'Lemma 3.17', so I think proper can be replaced with closed. Maybe $F$ is closed or something.  Kinda related (see Question 2 below):     says    If $F$ is proper then the image $\Delta = F(R)$ is discrete in $Y$.   This seems to have all the same assumptions as with Miranda. Ostensibly, either Miranda is wrong or there's some higher level machinery that allows us to omit $F$ proper.  Question 2: To possibly generalise this, what are the minimum requirements on $F, X$ and $Y$ to make $F$ map discrete subsets to discrete subsets? I mean, I'm not sure we really need 'holomorphic' here. I have a feeling this applies perhaps to maps that are just open/closed, continuous and discrete and spaces that are just Hausdorff and locally compact or something.  (again) Kinda related: Proof of the equality $\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{k^2}{2^k} = 6$ Why is it string.join(list) instead of list.join(string)? For users running Java application or applets in the browser, what difference does it make running either Sun Java or OpenJDK?  EDIT  Oracle will be , and basing the proprietary implementation on OpenJDK. Can we expect similar experience in running Java apps using either OpenJDK or Oracle JDK? siunitx tabular numbers with separated uncertainty I would like to format the space reserved for a number shown in a table with separated uncertainty. It seems that when I use the table-format option the brackets around the mantissa disappear. This is illustrated in the example below:  \documentclass{article}     \usepackage{siunitx}  \begin{document}     \begin{table}   \begin{tabular}{                   S[separate-uncertainty = true]                   S[table-format=1.1(1)e1,                   separate-uncertainty = true]                   }     {Header} &amp; {Header}\\     1.0(2)e2 &amp; 1.0(2)e2\\   \end{tabular} \end{table}     \end{document}     I have also tried to use the bracket-numbers and multi-part-units = brackets without solving this issue. Is there any workaround to center the number and keep the brackets like in the first column of the example? Current in wire + moving charge next to wire creates magnetic force in the stationary reference frame OR electric force in the moving reference frame from special relativity due to change in charge density etc.... I think I understand this and I think it's super cool. Now here's the rub...  Current in wire + stationary charge next to wire creates no net charge. This is how nature behaves. I get it. My question is why can't I use the same special relativity logic as above, that is, current in wire cause electrons in wire to contract in accordance with special relativity so there has to be a net charge on the wire, which then acts on stationary charge next to wire.  I have been reading and reading and reading and I have come up with the following:  (1) When electrons in wire get accelerated to create current the distance between them actually expands in accordance with special relativity - something to do with bells spaceship paradox - which I am not going to pretend to understand  (2) This expansion from (1) above is exactly opposite and equal in magnitude to the contraction special relativity then causes and the expansion and contraction cancel out to keep the charge density in the wire constant and therefore no net charge on the wire  Here are my questions:  Is the explanation above correct? If so, please elaborate because i dont understand  If not correct, what is going on?  This is driving me absolutely nuts. For whatever reason, the "Open With" context menu in Finder is always listing every app four times (exactly).     I've read about (and tried) rebuilding the Launch Services database to restore the context menu to its initial state, but nothing seems to work. I've also used Onyx.app to clear user and system caches, but I'm still left with four repetitions of each app under the "Open With" service. I have restarted the system a few times just to be sure it was not some temporary corruption of the list.  I'm running OS X 10.6.6 on a 2011 17" MacBook Pro with a fresh install of OS X (i.e. I didn't use Migration Assistant.app or a Time Machine backup). I did, however, sync all my preferences and other files using MobileMe like I always do, so I imagine it's feasible that a preference file somewhere is causing problems? I didn't notice whether this was happening before or after my MobileMe sync.  How can I fix this so one app shows? Javascript infamous Loop issue? Why the Principle of Least Action? 1970s: Student creates complex program, forgets about it, and it becomes intelligent and finds him years later This is solely a reference request. I have heard a few versions of the following theorem:     If the joint moment generating function $\mathbb{E}[e^{uX+vY}] = \mathbb{E}[e^{uX}]\mathbb{E}[e^{vY}]$ whenever the expectations are finite, then $X,Y$ are independent.   And there is a similar version for characteristic functions. Could anyone provide me a serious reference which proves one or both of these theorems? Must present perfect tense be used if the action takes place more than once? I was told that if an action is completed once in the past, the simple past is used. Ex:  I saw that movie.  If the action is completed more than once, the present perfect tense must be used. Ex:  I have seen that movie twelve times.    So, "I have seen that movie twelve times on Tuesday." is correct and "I saw that movie twelve times on Tuesday." is incorrect? How can I convert a Unix timestamp to DateTime and vice versa? There is this example code, but then it starts talking about millisecond / nanosecond problems.  The same question is on MSDN, .  This is what I've got so far:  public Double CreatedEpoch {   get   {     DateTime epoch = new DateTime(1970, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0).ToLocalTime();     TimeSpan span = (this.Created.ToLocalTime() - epoch);     return span.TotalSeconds;   }   set   {     DateTime epoch = new DateTime(1970, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0).ToLocalTime();     this.Created = epoch.AddSeconds(value);   } } Can the links in the "possible vandalism: edits" flag point to the revision rather than the post When we get the following flag:     possible vandalism: edits (auto)   We see a set of links to the posts that have been edited.  This means that to check that edit is valid we have to click the link to the post then click the link to the revisions on that post and then go back twice to get back to the flag to check the other posts.  It would be far more efficient if the links were to the revisions page rather than the post itself. It would make checking these flag much quicker.