Should the ® symbol have a font size smaller than the actual text, similar to Name ™?

I see the TM tag with a text smaller than its associated name. Does this also apply to the ® symbol?

Should it have the same font size as the name or be smaller, as the exponents are displayed in math?

Disk Utility – Problems with Cloning an OS X Drive into a Smaller Disk

I'm trying to move my OS X installation to a smaller drive because I plan to move to another operating system, but it takes a lot longer than expected and I hope that One can help me here.

The SSD that now contains OS X is divided into 4 partitions: EFI, Yosemite, Recovery HD (linked to Yosemite), El Capitan. I've narrowed each partition (except EFI of course) and I moved it to the left. Thus, only the first ~ 120 GB of the disk are used, the rest is not allocated. Also note that there is a Hackintosh, so there are slight differences between the bootloader and the EFI content. This SSD is working perfectly on all partitions and Disk Utility does not detect any problems.

The first thing I tried was to create partitions on the hard drive that start and end in the same sectors as the SSD (with gpt in terminal iirc), then with Disk Utility (later tried with Gparted) for clone the original partitions on the news and fix them. the disk to repair the partition table. It did not work – the disc was not bootable.

I've read in this book and other sites that disk utility users are simply used to restore a larger disk with enough free space in a smaller disk, and it works. I've tried the same thing but I get a strange error (error OSStatus 6): the volume is not Apple_HFS or Apple_UFS. Except for EFI, this is not true. The destination disk had an empty partition formatted in HFS +, but the disk utility still reported the error before it could check the destination. Note that I've tried this since El Capitan, Recovery HD and a separate installation dongle from High Sierra.

I tried to create an image of the entire disk. To do this, I formatted another 500GB disk in GPT with an HFS + partition and I used it as a destination for the image file, but Disk Utility lamented that it it needed a space as large as the source drive, even if the image had to be compressed. .

Using CloneZilla did not bring me much further. Trying to clone a disk to another gave me an instant error – even after selecting the option not to check the size of the destination disk relative to the source (I will try again tomorrow with a new SATA-USB adapter that I have today). CloneZilla, like many Linux tools, would have been poorly supported by HFS +. I've also tried to create a disk image with Clonezilla. It seems to work well and the data copy of each partition was finished, but just before the end, an error occurred and the operation was interrupted, rendering the image unusable (I did not record the actual error here, I can rerun it and report if you think it may be relevant). The image was on the same 500GB drive as the one previously used with Disk Utility, but this time in exFAT format.

I then agreed to try a commercial software. I've tried Carbon Copy Cloner, which allows the user to copy only single volumes at a time. I tried to clone all the content, but after that, the drive was no longer bootable. I later tried to dd the EFI partition from the SSD, but that made no difference. Note that the simple volumes on the newly cloned drive did start well if I launched the boot loader (Clover in my case) from another drive (the SSD or the USB installation) . The same thing happened after trying some other methods mentioned above.

At this point, I am running out of ideas and it gets a little frustrating. What do I neglect? How can I clone this disc and use it as if it was the original? Thanks for the help.

Equation Resolution – Make Arrows Smaller

I have the following program that describes a 3D curve in space with an osculant circle and TNB vectors moving with the curve. The arrows indicating the TNB vectors are much too large, giving the impression that only the arrowheads are plotted. I can also make the tree visible by changing the plot range, but this allows the curve to be enlarged to show only a small part of it. The curve is a circular helix.

    {r, tmin, tmax, Mag, curvature, radius, T, Tprime, NNN, B, thecircle},
    r[t_] = {5 * Cos[3 t], 5 * Sin[3 t], 3 (t - Pi)};
Mag[w_] = Sqrt[w.w];
curvature[t_] =
Ray[t_] = Si[curvature

T[t_] = D[Dr[Dr[r[r
Tprime[t_] = D[T[T[T[T
NNN[t_] =
Yes[Tprime[m] == {0, 0}, {0, 0}, Tprime[m]/ Sqrt[Tprime[m].Premium[m]]];
B[t_] = Cross[T[T[T[T

The circle[t0_] : = Module[
      transMat = Transpose[{T[t0], NNN[t0], B[t0]}];
center1 = radius[t0]* NNN[t0] + r[t0];
CIRCLE1[r_] : = {r * Cos
graphthis =
transMat.circle1[Ray[radius[rayon[radius[t0]]+ {center1[[1]], center1[[2]],
ParametricPlot3D[graphthis, {t, 0, 2 Pi}, MaxRecursion -> 0, 
        PlotStyle -> Purple]
      ]; (* End module *)

The circle[m],
(* These are the TNB arrows *)
Graphics3D[{{Thick, darker @ red,
Arrow[{R[{R[{r[{r[m], r[m] + T[m]}]}, {Thick, darker @ green,
Arrow[{R[{R[{r[{r[m], r[m] + B[m]}]}, {Thick, darker @ cyan,
Arrow[{R[{R[{r[{r[m], r[m] + NNN[m]}]}
{PointSize[0.02], Point[Dr[Dr[r[r[m]]}
AspectRatio -> Automatic, ImageSize -> {500, 375}, PlotRange -> 25,
Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, SphericalRegion -> True,
ViewAngle -> .14
], {s, -1, 1}](* end show *)
](* end module *),
{fcn, 1, "curve:"}, {1 -> "circular helix"},
Type of control -> RadioButtonBar
{m, 0, "position on the curve"}, 0, 2 Pi
TrackedSymbols:> {m, fcn}

Gephi: Smaller animation steps for dynamic graphics?

I'm doing a dynamic graph in gephy with over 1000 moments in time … and I want to make a dynamic evolution of the graph, but the smallest step in animation is 1% of the total timeline (which is a lot of time for my chronology). Is it possible to reduce time steps? (in the progression of the animation, not in the graph where they are already much smaller)

Windows 10 – Software to transfer files from a large hard drive to multiple smaller hard drives / flash?

Software suggestions for copying files from a large disk to multiple smaller disks, preserving all file attributes, such as the creation / modification date?

I'm looking for something that could fill a drive and ask for another destination to copy the remaining files until this drive is full and so on until all the files are copied.

FastCopy works almost, except that it does not allow to change destination without resetting what has already been copied (I can however be wrong)

samsung – Why does my app seem bigger / smaller on different phones if I use dp and sp as a unit?

My app seems bigger / smaller on different devices and I have not been able to understand why. After some research, I found the Android developer's instructions to support different screen sizes. He suggests using dp / sp instead of px as a unit for dimensions, which I have already done.

I've tested my app on two 5 "phones 7 screens.The first being the Google Nexus 5X running the API 28 on an emulator, it was showing up as expected.Then I tested it on a Samsung Galaxy Note 5 in physics and all the element had looked much bigger, so big in fact that the application did not fit the screen.

I want to know why this happens and how to solve it.

Here is an excerpt from my code








My app has a bunch of cards like this one in a HorizontalScrollView (dynamically generated by the code) and at the bottom of the screen a button. The button is the element that comes out of the screen because the other elements of the activity expand.

How to create a smaller image in Java Script

How can I create a smaller image with Java Script?

formal languages ​​- If you have a smaller grammar approximation, do you immediately have a CFG inference algorithm?

The smallest grammar problem is to find a single-chain CFG. So, given a finite list of language samples, known to all in some CFGs, can we, using the smaller (approximate) grammars of each respective sample, calculate an approximate CFG for the language?

I want to create a parser generator that automatically detects a grammar from some programming language examples.

Do the smaller apertures have more depth of field beyond the diffraction limit, even if the sharpness of the peak suffers?

First of all, he was a number on the film. If Bryan Peterson was not aware at that time, it would only show what he did not know, do not that it was not really a problem.

There were differences though. First of all, we did not have EXIF ​​data, and most people did not have enough notes to really know why X was more accurate than Y. Even for those who kept notes, were doing real tests, like taking 100 photos of the same subject by varying the camera settings to see what worked well and what did not work was enough for that very few people all really tried.

Second, for most people, the standards were much lower. Watching images on a computer screen, in particular, makes a lot It's easier to zoom in narrow, to the point of seeing really minor flaws that you'd never see in a reasonably sized print or projecting a slide even really great.

Third, there is something of a psychological effect involved. When shooting at f / 22, all is a little fuzzy, so you have a tendency (for example) not to look at it as closely. Most people will never notice it much because they tend to stop looking closer when they realize (subconsciously) that there is more detail to see. On the other hand, if you photograph, f / 5.6 for example, the parts of the image that have exactly the same size of CoF as the f / 22. look fuzzy because you can (at least usually) see much sharper areas.

Fourth, a lot depends on the quality of the lens used. If you look / play with goals from 50 or 60 years ago (for example), you can trust that, by today's standards, they are rather horrible when they are wide open. An f / 2 lens can easily need to be stopped until f / 8 or before fairly good by modern standards. The aberrations when it was wide open were serious enough that the quality improved again to f / 11 or even f / 16 in many cases. A big goal and a very bad goal are about equal to f / 22 – but at f / 8, the big goal will be a lot better.

To get closer to your direct question: yes, the size of the sensor has a considerable effect. With a larger sensor, you need to get closer to the subject to get the same framing with the same focal length as the lens. This means that a larger sensor will normally reduce the apparent impact strength so that you will gain more by stopping. Secondly, if you use a larger sensor, you enlarge less to get the same print size. This prevents the loss of sharpness of a small aperture from being almost as apparent.

To give an extreme example, many of the most famous "classic" photographers like Adams and Weston belonged to what they called the f / 64 club. Turning an 8×10 camera (or even bigger), they necessary a tiny aperture to get any DoF, and (quite obviously after the name) considered that the f / 64 aperture was ideal. The loss of sharpness mattered little, for the simple reason that they rarely grew larger. From an 8×10 negative, even a 24×30 print is only a 3: 1 enlargement – slightly less the enlargement only to produce a 3×5 print from a full-frame digital camera.

Edit: First of all, f / 22 is only rarely necessary from the point of view of DoF. Consider hyperfocal distances for a 50mm lens at different apertures:

f / 8: 41 feet
f / 11: 29 feet
f / 16: 21 feet
f / 22: 15 feet

The closest point that is the focus of the focus is half of that number in each case. Therefore, going from f / 16 to f / 22 saves you about 3 feet of foreground that is net. There are probably times when winning only 3 feet is worth no matter what. Let's be honest though: it's not very common – and probably in 95% of the cases where you can use f / 22 to do the job, you can use the focus stack (for example) to accomplish the same thing. and get a much higher sharpness.

For a typical landscape, it is rarely necessary. For example, consider an FF camera with a 50mm lens held at eye level (for example, 60 "above ground), with the nearby ground level and level. For simplicity, suppose that they keep the camera roughly level. .

In this case, the nearest first plan at the beginning very The edge of the photo is about 250 inches (just under 21 feet). This means that f / 8 is small enough for the all image to fall into the DoF. Someone looks really closely to very The edge of the photo might notice that it's just a little sweeter than the center – but what they see is always a little sharper at the edge and a lot sharper in the center than if you took the picture at f / 22.

I feel compelled to add, however, that DoF is not the only reason to use a small aperture. I sometimes use a small aperture specifically to give a rather soft and low contrast image. Setting f / 22 (or f / 32, if necessary) can be a very economical alternative to a soft-focus lens, and when you want to get a soft and dreamy look as one would expect. from a pinhole camera, f / 32 can be an easy task. replace.

Conclusion: It is quite possible to produce very beautiful images by taking pictures at f / 22 or f / 32 – but when / if you use it, you have to do it based on at least one idea what to expect and knowing that want the kind of photo you will have. Make do not do it because Bryan Peterson (or whoever else) has assured you that it was the right thing to do, and that you should not do it hoping that an image at f / 22 appears as sharp as f / 11.

Let me conclude with a short series of photos. These were all taken from a tripod with the predefined mirror, all at a few seconds apart so that the light changed very little, and so on. First, an overview:

enter the description of the image here

Then 100% of the crops at f / 11, f / 16, f / 22 and / f32:
enter the description of the image hereenter the description of the image hereenter the description of the image hereenter the description of the image here

Now, it is true that we are here at least to a certain extent, but it is also true that the loss of quality at f / 22 and (especially) f / 32 is quite obvious. Frankly, although most tests show a loss at f / 16 when shooting high-contrast flat targets, here on an actual photo, f / 16 does not look as if it's different from f / 11.

OTOH, at f / 22, the loss of quality is rather noticeable, and at f / 32, the result is frankly awful.

Oh, and these are all taken at 200mm. If you believe that a long lens will spare you the effects of diffraction, get ready for some disappointment …

calculation – Prove an integral is smaller than the parameter

$$ R = int_s ^ t frac {1} { sqrt {(x + a ^ 2) (x + b ^ 2) (x + c ^ 2)}} dx $$

parameters a, b, c.
Prove that the integral between $ s = 0, t = 1 $ is $ le frac {1} {abc} $

my attempt: it is obvious that $ sqrt {(x + a ^ 2) (x + b ^ 2) (x + c ^ 2)} ge sqrt {a ^ 2b ^ 2c ^ 2} $ and so $$ int_0 ^ 1 frac {1} { sqrt {(x + a ^ 2) (x + b ^ 2) (x + c ^ 2)}} dx the int_0 ^ 1 frac {1 } { sqrt {a ^ 2b ^ 2c ^ 2}} dx = int_0 ^ 1 frac {1} { sqrt {a ^ 2} sqrt {b ^ 2} sqrt {c ^ 2}} dx = int_0 ^ 1 frac {1} {abc} dx $$

Is this what was needed?