Farm Solution Vs Sandbox solution
Farm Solution Vs. SandBox
How do I get my Epson Scanner working on Ubuntu 13.10 I have the Epson SX218 with a built-in scanner. The printer works fine but if I want to scan something simple scan says no scanner found.  Any ideas what I can do?  By the way, how can I check the ink level of the printer?? Is there an easy way to calculate the residue at one of the poles of a rational expression of the form $\frac{1}{1+z^n}$?  I end up having to add a bunch of polar-form complex numbers in the denominator which I have no idea how to do except to convert them to rectangular coordinates, which becomes really messy.  I feel like there ought to be simple pattern/rule for such a canonical expression. Very difficult integral (for me) Could someone point me to an online resource where I can look up  $$ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\cos(\vec k\cdot\vec x)}{\sqrt{|\vec k|^2+m^2}}\,dk_1\,dk_2\,dk_3$$  where $\vec k$ and $\vec x$ are 3-vectors, and $m$ is a constant.  Also, if you know how to do it step by step and want to show off your fancy integration, that would also be very helpful.  Thanks ;) How to make the term "page" show in the Glossary list? I just graduated, and I'm starting a new job soon. My employer has pretty good policy for matching 401(k) contributions, so I want to invest as much as possible, especially during this first year.  My question is: should I invest in a traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), or some combination of the two? On the one hand, tax rates may be much higher when I retire, and I might be in a higher tax bracket, so a Roth 401(k) would be good. On the other hand, I might be in a lower tax bracket when I retire, so a traditional 401(k) might be better. It's hard to know where I will stand in 30 years.  Is this the same trade-off as with a traditional / Roth IRA, or is there any other tax difference I should know about? E.g.: If your Gmail ID is abc.xyz@gmail.com, it considers this the same as abcxyz@gmail.com.  Why is this so? For an odd prime $p$, prove that any primitive root $r$ of $p^n$ is also a primitive root of  $p$   So I have assumed $r$ have order $k$ modulo $p$ , So $k|p-1$.Then if I am able to show that $p-1|k$ then I am done .But I haven't been able to show that.Can anybody help me this method?Any other type of prove is also welcomed. What is $\mathbb{E}[W(s)\mathrm{e}^{W(S)}]$ where W(S) is a standard Brownian Motion? I know that since it is a Brownian motion that $W(s)\sim{N(0,s)}$. One approach I tried, was to see that $W(s)-W(0)\sim N(0,1)$ and to let $X = W(s)$ and then solve $\mathbb{E}[X\mathrm{e}^X]$ but I end up with some awful integral. I was wondering whether there was an easier way? Or perhaps a simple way to solve this integral: $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\pi}s}}x\mathbb{e}^{x}\mathbb{e}^{-\frac{x^2}{2s}}$ Distinct digits in a combination of 6 digits If $\int_0^1 f(x)x^n \ dx=0$ for every $n$, then $f=0$. My current understanding:  $\vdash$ is "syntactic consequence", e.g. if we have $a \vdash b$ it means if we've written down $a$ as something we know, we can immediately write down $b$ as something we know. This is saying nothing about whether any of these pieces are true, false, something else, etc, it's just saying that we can say something about $b$ by virtue of being able to say something about $a$.  $\vDash$ is "semantic consequence", e.g. if we have $a \vDash b$, then it (usually) means if $a$ is always true in every interpretation (i.e. no matter how we mess with any of the underlying variables driving $a$'s valuation), then $b$ is true as well. However I don't know if this is necessarily just a "true"-only thing. It seems conceivable that we could make one for falsehoods too, i.e. if $a \vDash b$ might mean if $a$ is always false then $b$ is always false, of if $a$ is always "dog" then $b$ is always "dog", etc. But I am unsure of this one.  $\to$ is material implication, which exists solely within the logic system (as opposed to the previous two metalogical relations) and has a specific semantic meaning / definition in terms of a truth table in something like prepositional logic ($a \to b$ is always true unless $a$ is true and $b$ is false). It's defined this way simply because it is a helpful / useful model to describe things like "whenever $a$ is true, $b$ is true".  Do I have the right idea so far? Although many have attempted to explain the difference among \mathrm, \textrm, \textnormal and \text (and others?), I found them misleading.  See for example the LaTeX's Wiki \mathrm explanation   Why is it wrong? Let's try all of them within an article and a beamer and you'll see the difference and, therefore, error.  equation.tex  \begin{eqnarray*}   \int_1^9\! \cos{x} \,\mathrm{d}x &amp; &amp; \textrm{this is textrm}\   \sum_1^9 y                       &amp; &amp; \textsf{this is textsf}\   \prod_1^9 z                      &amp; &amp; \textnormal{this is textnormal}\   \bigcup_1^9 w                    &amp; &amp; \text{and this is just text} \end{eqnarray*}   article.tex  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb}  \begin{document}   \input {equation} \end{document}     And until here everything looks fine...  beamer.tex  \documentclass{beamer} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb}  \begin{document}   \begin{frame}     \input{equation}   \end{frame} \end{document}     And here we can clearly see that \mathrm does not behave as expected, i.e. does not provide a function aspect to the d. Does anyone know what am I supposed to use here instead? Just \text?? o.O  Moreover, I cannot see any difference between \textnormal and \text.  Finally, \textrm looks useless.. How can Obito use his Mangekyo so often? Non-blocking Synchronous AJAX I have asked this question before ( and  )  My problem is that my Self Encrypted Disk (SED) have to NOT spin down even on suspend!  I have tried , but it did not work and the disk spin downs anyway !  The problem is that if the disk spins down, because it is on suspend, it does not show the "de encryption" prompt, and boots back up on RAM, but crashed due to IO error on the disk! (that's what the disk is suposed to do !)  Anyone on how to NOT (as in NEVER) spin down a HDD ? (yes this goes against all logic but this particular case)   Thanks a lot !  Would that be useful ?   sudo hdparm -I /dev/sda [sudo] password for xqua:   /dev/sda:  ATA device, with non-removable media     Model Number:       ST500LT015-9WU142                            Serial Number:      W0VBZQQ7     Firmware Revision:  0001SDM7     Transport:          Serial, ATA8-AST, SATA 1.0a, SATA II Extensions, SATA Rev 2.5, SATA Rev 2.6 Standards:     Used: unknown (minor revision code 0x0029)      Supported: 8 7 6 5      Likely used: 8 Configuration:     Logical     max current     cylinders   16383   16383     heads       16  16     sectors/track   63  63     --     CHS current addressable sectors:   16514064     LBA    user addressable sectors:  268435455     LBA48  user addressable sectors:  976773168     Logical  Sector size:                   512 bytes     Physical Sector size:                  4096 bytes     Logical Sector-0 offset:                  0 bytes     device size with M = 1024*1024:      476940 MBytes     device size with M = 1000*1000:      500107 MBytes (500 GB)     cache/buffer size  = 16384 KBytes     Form Factor: 2.5 inch     Nominal Media Rotation Rate: 5400 Capabilities:     LBA, IORDY(can be disabled)     Queue depth: 32     Standby timer values: spec'd by Standard, no device specific minimum     R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 1   Current = 1     Advanced power management level: 254     Recommended acoustic management value: 208, current value: 0     DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5 *udma6           Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns     PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4           Cycle time: no flow control=120ns  IORDY flow control=120ns Commands/features:     Enabled Supported:        *    SMART feature set        *    Power Management feature set        *    Write cache        *    Look-ahead        *    Host Protected Area feature set        *    WRITE_BUFFER command        *    READ_BUFFER command        *    NOP cmd        *    DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE        *    Advanced Power Management feature set             Power-Up In Standby feature set        *    SET_FEATURES required to spinup after power up             SET_MAX security extension        *    48-bit Address feature set        *    Device Configuration Overlay feature set        *    Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE        *    FLUSH_CACHE_EXT        *    SMART error logging        *    SMART self-test        *    General Purpose Logging feature set        *    WRITE_{DMA|MULTIPLE}_FUA_EXT        *    64-bit World wide name        *    IDLE_IMMEDIATE with UNLOAD        *    Write-Read-Verify feature set        *    WRITE_UNCORRECTABLE_EXT command        *    {READ,WRITE}_DMA_EXT_GPL commands        *    Segmented DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE        *    Gen1 signaling speed (1.5Gb/s)        *    Gen2 signaling speed (3.0Gb/s)        *    Native Command Queueing (NCQ)        *    Host-initiated interface power management        *    Phy event counters        *    Idle-Unload when NCQ is active             Device-initiated interface power management        *    Software settings preservation        *    SMART Command Transport (SCT) feature set        *    SCT Write Same (AC2)        *    SCT Features Control (AC4)        *    SCT Data Tables (AC5)             unknown 206[12] (vendor specific)        *    reserved 69[4]        *    reserved 69[7] Logical Unit WWN Device Identifier: 5000c5006a036439     NAA     : 5     IEEE OUI    : 000c50     Unique ID   : 06a036439 Checksum: correct bi-directional sync with rsync I'm reading Baby Rudin and exercise 28 of chapter 2 reads "Prove that every closed set in a separable metric space is the union of a (possibly empty) perfect set and a set which is at most countable." I don't understand why the set must be closed in order for this to be true.  My proof is as follows, and I don't make any reference to the closedness of the set:  Let $E$ be a set in a separable metric space.  Let $B$ be a countable base of that metric space.  Let $P$ be the set of condensation points of $E$.  I claim that $P$ is perfect and $E-P$ is at most countable.  If $p$ is a limit point of $P$, then every neighborhood of $p$ includes at least one point $q$ of P.  For a neighborhood $N_{p}$ of $p$, choose a neighborhood $N_{q} \subset N_{p}$ of $q$.  Since $q$ is a condensation point of $E$, uncountably many points of $E$ are in $N_{q}$, and thus in $N_{p}$.  So $p\in P$ and $P$ is closed.  If $p \in P$, then $p$ is a condensation point of $E$, so every neighborhood $N_{p}$ of $p$ must include uncountably many points of $E$.  If $p$ is not a limit point of $P$, then there exists a neighborhood $N_{p}$ of $p$ such that $N_p$ includes no condensation points of $E$ except for $p$.  This means that every point $q\in N_{p}-\{p\}$ must have a neighborhood $N_{q}$ that does not have uncountably many points of $E$.  For each $b_{k}\in B \cap \mathscr{P}(N_{p})$, choose such a neighborhood $N_{q_{k}} \supset b_{k}$ of some point $q\in N_{p}-\{p\}$.  Now $\{N_{q_{k}}\}$ covers $N_{p}$, and $\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}N_{q_{k}}\supset N_{p}$ has at most countably many points of $E$, for it is a union of countably many sets that have at most countably many points of $E$.  This contradicts the assumption that $p\in P$.  So $P$ is perfect.  Let $S=E-P$. There are no condensation points in $S$.  So there exists an open cover $\{N_s\}$, where each $N_s$ is a neighborhood of $s \in S$ with at most countably many elements of $S$. For each $b_{k}\in B \cap \mathscr{P}(S)$, choose such a neighborhood $N_{s_{k}} \supset b_{k}$ of some point $s\in S$.  Then we have a countable subcover $\{N_{p_{k}}\}$ of $S$. As $N_{p_{k}} \cap S$ is at most countable for all $k$, $S$ must be at most countable.  So what am I doing wrong?  Or is Rudin's assumption of closedness extraneous? Computing $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt[3]{3}+\cdots+\sqrt[n]{n}}{n}$. I have a problem with the calculation of the following limit. \begin{equation} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt[3]{3}+\cdots+\sqrt[n]{n}}{n} \end{equation} I do not know where to start! Thank you very much Import Large Excel File Finding the number of analytic functions which vanish only on a given set. Let $S = \{0\}\cup \{\frac{1}{4n+7} : n =1,2\ldots\}$. How to find the number of analytic functions which vanish only on $S$?  Options are   a: $\infty$  b: $0$  c: $1$  d: $2$