centos – Bonding fails in kickstart% before section

I'm trying to set up a connected network through the% pre section of a CentOS 7 kickstart. I can prove the following federated networks:

network --device=mynetwork --bondslaves=eth0,eth1 --bootproto static --ip --activate --onboot yes --noipv6 --netmask=
network --hostname=testy

But if I try to add that /tmp/network.ks and import does not work. I wonder what I'm doing wrong.

I add the import to the same place where the above lines were:
%include /tmp/network.ks

Then I attached the same lines directly to the import:

    echo "network --device=mynetwork --bondslaves=eth0,eth1 --bootproto static --ip --activate --onboot yes --noipv6 --netmask=" >/tmp/network.ks
    echo "network --hostname=testy" >>/tmp/network.ks

Are these not functional equivalents, as the documentation states:

Use the% include / path / to / file command to include the contents of
another file in the kickstart file, as if the content were the
Location of the% include command in the kickstart file.

Calculus – Integration limits for the volume of the solid, which is formed by an area between two curves with a square cross section?

I'm given two turns $ y_1 = x ^ 2 $ and $ y_2 = 8 $, whose cross-sections are squares, perpendicular to the Y-axis, and asked to find from the volume of a solid so formed, so that $ y_1 $ and $ y_2 $ lie on a plane and the square cross-section perpendicular to it.

So far I think I've adjusted my volume integrand well – I've replaced that $ s $ in the $ A = s ^ 2 $ for the difference between the curves $ (8-x ^ 2) $ (thus forming $ A = (8-x ^ 2) ^ 2 $) and I'm about to integrate in terms of $ x $: $$ V = int _ {- 2 sqrt {2}} ^ {2 sqrt {2}} (8-x ^ 2) ^ 2dx $$

The problem is that I can not enter broken numbers in my assignment, although that is the case with the other questions, which suggests that the volume of the solid should be an integer. This in turn indicates that I have not chosen my integration limits correctly, but I'm not sure how to do it differently. Did I do something wrong here? Where were the X values ​​found? $ y_1 = y_2 $ Not the right method to do this?

Why insert a section element into a list in HTML?

The question here is what the purpose would be to put several

Elements within one

  • , I think that everything you want to achieve can be done in other ways. An article can contain lists. Lists can contain links to articles. why should a section element be inserted in a list?

    Your lists and articles are certainly assigned CSS styles. If you like the way your lists display content, you can make sure that your articles look like this with CSS, without the latter being inserted into the former. Within lists

    Elements would be more appropriate if you wanted to include more copies than just article links.

    Here is a good reason why articles in lists are semantically wrong. An article tag "indicates independent, self-contained content." If you include this in a list, it is no longer independent or self-contained. It is either related to or dependent on the other list items.

  • PlanetOfBets has added more games to the virtual sports section

    PlanetOfBets Virtual Sport Update Notification; August – 2019

    PlanetOfBets Has added more league than update to her Virtual Football Section with the following

    Italian Fast League

    Spanish Fast League


    With the already English Fast League a total of 3 football players to their virtual football games
    Section. With PlanetOfBets Virtual Sports Games section; Players can earn money every minute and earn cash
    Immediately without stress.

    Join PlanetOfBets Here and earn 1% of your total bet

    Matrices – Linear Algebra 4th Edition, David Gilbert – Exercise 27 Section 3.3

    The problem mentioned in the title is described in:


    under problem 7.

    I do not understand the solution to question e, in particular the matrix block multiplication. I do not understand where the 0 matrix block comes from. If I do the multiplication, I have the time (F transpose) (F) instead …

    Enter image description here

    Linear Algebra – Doubt in Hoffman and Kunze Section 5.2 (existence of a determinant)

    I am trying to read Hoffman Kunze's book on linear algebra, and I have doubts about a particular result (Sentence 1) in Section 5.2. Specifically, it says in the sentence:

    To let $ n> 1 $ and let it go $ D $ to be a change $ (n – 1) $-linear function
    $ (n – 1) times (n – 1) $ Matrices over $ K $, For each $ j $. $ 1 <j le n $, the function $ E_j $ defined by $$ E_j (A) = sum_ {i = 1} ^ n (-l) ^ {i + j} A_ {ij} D_ {ij} $$ is a change $ n $-linear
    Function $ n times n $ matrices $ A $, If $ D $ is a determining function,
    that's how everyone is $ E_j $,

    Here $ D_ {ij} = D (A (i | j)) $ from where $ A (i | j) $ denotes the matrix that can be deleted by deleting the $ i $Row and the $ j $th column of $ A $,

    Now my question concerns the $ n $-linear part. I understand why $ D_ {ij} $ is linear in every line except the $ i $Row and that $ D_ {ij} $ is independent of the $ i $toss. What I do not understand is why $ D_ {ij} $ is linear in the $ i $toss.

    For example when $ n = 2 $ and $ D ((a)) = a $ then $$ D_ {11} begin {pmatrix} a + a & # 39; & b + b & # 39; \ c & d end {pmatrix} = d $$ while $$ D_ {11} begin {pmatrix} a & b \ c & d end {pmatrix} + D_ {11} begin {pmatrix} a & # 39; & bsp; \ c & d end {pmatrix} = d + d = 2d. $$

    But the authors state $ A_ {ij} D_ {ij} $ is $ n $-linear.