Have a look at the image below, this is how Youtube will look when someone opens on high resolution screen.There are empty space on both sides and I have checked this with many popular web apps, same behaviour everywhere.  So my question is why don't they use full screen for these high resolution screens?  One reason cab be that they don't want to make everything bloated(extra large) for big screens but not all high resolution screens are big screens.Nowadays there are ultra hd monitors available.
Why do many sites leave half of each webpage empty? Isn't this a waste of screen space?  One nice example of this is the Stack Exchange Network sites:    As you can see, there is a ton of whitespace left on both sides of each page.  Does the whitespace make sites compatible with certain screen sizes? Does leaving the space help make sites mobile friendly? Does space make pages seem less crowded, and thus, more usable? Or, is there no good reason and people just do it because they don't realize they shouldn't?  I've worked on sites that use both designs and haven't had users complain either way.  Examples of sites that have space: , ,  Examples of sites without space: , ,
Is there an idiom for people who boast too much? It is commonly stated that there are four fundamental forces, or interactions, in nature. It is natural to consider which of those is responsible for the normal force we meet in elementary physics. What is the nature of the force exerted on a body by the floor on which it rests?  Of the four forces, the only one that seems relevant is the electromagnetic force, and I always assumed the repelling force in question is ultimately the EM one. The Wikipedia article on  seems to agree:     Molecular and quantum physics show that the electromagnetic force is the fundamental interaction responsible for contact forces.    An alternative explanation is that the force results from Pauli's Exclusion Principle; however, reasonable as it may seem, it doesn't seem to answer the question of what force is actually at play here. The exclusion principle isn't a force, or at least it's not normally described as such.  I've recently come across a rather forcefully presented argument that states that the normal force is a macroscopic force that is not directly reducible to the EM force, or to any of the other forces; rather, it does indeed result from Pauli's Exclusion Principle by way of interaction of electron wave functions. The argument further claims that attempts to correct the Wikipedia article have met with the usual "source needed" objections, and that this topic is either misunderstood by or poorly covered in the standard texts.  (The argument can be found ).   Which way is it? What is the Hilbert curve's equation?! Let a,b,c be positive real number, such that  $\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c}=a+b+c$. Prove that :  $\frac{1}{(2a+b+c)^2}+\frac{1}{(2b+c+a)^2}+\frac{1}{(2c+a+b)^2} \leq \frac{3}{16}$  Can anyone help me how to deal with it? I am a student who has taken the basic calculus courses but I am working through Calculus (the fourth edition) by Spivak in my spare time in order to both review the material and to gain a more rigorous understanding of the concepts. I am currently in Chapter 8 where he supplies a proof of the basis of the Intermediate Value Theorem, Theorem 7-1 (pp. 135-136 of the fourth edition). It seems mostly straightforward but I think there is some nuance of it that I don't grasp.  I am including in this post the statement Theorem 6-3 since he references it in the proof of Theorem 7-1 as well as part of Theorem 7-1 itself.     Theorem 6-3 Suppose $f$ is continuous at $a$, and $f(a) &gt; 0$. Then $f(x) &gt; 0$ for all $x$ in some interval containing $a$; more precisely, there is a number $\delta &gt; 0$ such that $f(x) &gt; 0$ for all $x$ satisfying $|x-a| &lt; \delta$. Similarly, if $f(a) &lt; 0$, then there is a number $\delta &gt; 0$ such that $f(x) &lt; 0$ for all $x$ satisfying $|x-a| &lt; \delta$.     Problem 6-16 is also referenced. However,it is the same thing as Theorem 6-3 for one-sided limits. The following proof is the Theorem 7-1 up through the paragraph which I don't fully understand.     Theorem 7-1: If $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$ and $f(a) &lt; 0 &lt; f(b)$, then there is some number $z$ in $[a,b]$ such that $f(x) = 0$.  Proof: Define the set $A$ as follows:  $$A = \{x : a \le x\le b, \mbox{ and } f \mbox{ is negative on the interval } [a,x] \}.$$  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Clearly $A \ne \emptyset$, since $a$ is in $A$; in fact, there is some $\delta &gt; 0$ such that $A$ contains all points $x$ satisfying $a \le x &lt; a + \delta$; this follows from Problem 6-16, since $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$ and $f(a)&lt;0$. Similarly, $b$ is an upper bound for $A$ and, in fact, there is a $\delta &gt; 0$ such that all points $x$ satisfying $b-\delta &lt; x \le b$ are upper bounds for $A$; this also follows from Problem 6-16, since $f(b) &gt; 0$. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; From these remarks it follows that $A$ has a least upper bound $\alpha$ and that $a &lt; \alpha &lt; b$. We now wish to show that $f(\alpha) = 0$, by eliminating the possibilities $f(\alpha) &lt; 0$ and $f(\alpha) &gt; 0$. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Suppose first that $f(\alpha) &lt; 0$. By Theorem 6-3, there is a $\delta &gt; 0$ such that $f(x) &lt; 0$ for $\alpha - \delta &lt; x &lt; \alpha + \delta$. Now there is some number $x_0$ in $A$ which satisfies $\alpha - \delta &lt; x_0 &lt; \alpha$ (because otherwise $\alpha$ would not be the least upper bound of $A$). This means that $f$ is negative on the whole interval $[a,x_0]$. But if $x_1$ is a number between $\alpha$ and $\alpha+\delta$, then $f$ is also negative on the whole interval $[x_0,x_1]$. Therefore $f$ is negative on the interval $[a,x_1]$, so $x_1$ is in $A$. But this contradicts the fact that $\alpha$ is an upper bound for $A$; our original assumption that $f(\alpha) &lt; 0$ must be false.    The point I don't understand is in the final paragraph of the excerpt. Why does Spivak split the interval $[a,b]$ up into the subintervals $\lbrack a,x_0 \rbrack$ and $[x_0,x_1]$? Isn't it true that, because $\alpha$ is a least upper bound of $A$ and $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, it must be true that if $a \le x &lt; \alpha$ then $f(x)&lt;0$? I understand the need to pick out the $x_1$ but not the $x_0$. Especially perplexing is the statement "there is some number $x_0$ in $A$ which satisfies $\alpha - \delta &lt; x_0 &lt; \alpha$ (because otherwise $\alpha$ would not be the least upper bound of $A$." Wouldn't it be true that if there were some $x_0$ such that $a \le x_0 &lt; \alpha$ and $f(x_0) \ge 0$ that $x_0$ would be an upper bound for $A$, contradicting that $\alpha$ is the least upper bound of $A$?  Thanks for any help. The exchange of photons gives rise to the electromagnetic force Pardon me for my stubborn classical/semiclassical brain. But I bet I am not the only one finding such description confusing.  If EM force is caused by the exchange of photons, does that mean only when there are photons exchanged shall there be a force? To my knowledge, once charged particles are placed, the electromagnetic force is always there, uninterruptedly. According to such logic, there has to be a stream of infinite photons to build EM force, and there has to be no interval between one "exchange event" to another. A free light source from an EM field? The scenario is really hard to imagine.  For nuclei the scenario becomes even odder. The strong interaction between protons is caused by the exchange of massive pions. It sounds like the protons toss a stream of balls to one another to build an attractive force - and the balls should come from nothing.  Please correct me if I am wrong: the excitations of photons and pions all come from nothing. So there should be EM force and strong force everywhere, no matter what type of particles out there. Say, even electrical neutral, dipole-free particles can build EM force in-between. And I find no reason such exchanges of particles cannot happen in vacuum.   Hope there will be some decent firmware to refresh my classical brain with newer field language codes. On average, how many times must I roll a dice until I get a $6$?  I got this question from a book called Fifty Challenging Problems in Probability.   The answer is $6$, and I understand the solution the book has given me. However, I want to know why the following logic does not work: The chance that we do not get a $6$ is $5/6$. In order to find the number of dice rolls needed, I want the probability of there being a $6$ in $n$ rolls being $1/2$ in order to find the average. So I solve the equation $(5/6)^n=1/2$, which gives me $n=3.8$-ish. That number makes sense to me intuitively, where the number $6$ does not make sense intuitively. I feel like on average, I would need to roll about $3$-$4$ times to get a $6$. Sometimes, I will have to roll less than $3$-$4$ times, and sometimes I will have to roll more than $3$-$4$ times.  Please note that I am not asking how to solve this question, but what is wrong with my logic above.  Thank you! Failed to download repository information due to missing CDROM When updating I got this error message:  W:Failed to fetch cdrom://Ubuntu 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Release amd64 (20111012)/dists/oneiric/main/binary-i386/Packages  Please use apt-cdrom to make this CD-ROM recognized by APT. apt-get update cannot be used to add new CD-ROMs W:Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/synce/ubuntu/dists/your_ubuntu_version/main/source/Sources  404  Not Found   What to do? Can someone give me some example code that creates a surface with a transparent background in pygame? Modular exponentiation by hand ($a^b\bmod c$) Symmetric encryption construction (meet-in-the-middle attack) This is a question I had from an exercise session.  First we do DES in CBC encryption mode using a key $K_1$ and $IV_1 = O^n$. Then we do DES in ECB decryption mode using $K_1$. And then DES in CBC decryption mode with a secret $IV_2$ and key $K_2$.  Is this construction safe against meet-in-the-middle attack?  Wouldn't the first two operations negate themselves because $C_1$ would decrypt into $P_1$? Our admins deployed a new version of Notepad++ (version 6.3) on our machines, and this version is highlighting all changes done in a file by default. It does so by setting the background color of every modified line to a bright orange, which I find very distracting.  We  have dozens of plugins installed, but I double checked and we do not have the "Change Markers" plugin (which could be the culprit).  Any idea where I can disable this feature? Changing the highlight color could also be an option. Why does ice make such peculiar sounds? I've come across a couple of videos where some interesting sounds are produced using ice.  (Click on the images to see the video.)      Here, they drop a block of ice into a deep crevice and as the block falls, you can hear some strange sounds. These sounds remind me of some sound effects in old cartoons and sci-fi movies. The pitch of the sounds start high and end up low. Is this some kind of doppler effect?      Here, there's a man performing 'nordic skating', making the same sounds as he skates on top of a thin ice sheet. Maybe they are caused by the cracking ice. But why does that sound like this?    There are some other videos too, where they skip stones on frozen lakes.    Here the ice makes some high-frequency sounds which correspond to the chirping of birds.  What are these sounds and why do they sound the way they sound? What counts as an attack? I was looking over the class feature of the 'fiend' patron warlock in 5e. I'm a bit confused on what actions the player needs to take before they can use the 'Hurl Through Hell' ability on an enemy. The PHB states:     Starting at 14th level, when you hit a creature with an attack, you can use this feature to instantly transport the target through the lower planes.   I'm not clear on what an 'attack' means in this context. Does it have to be a physical attack like a sword or crossbow? Do magical attacks like Eldritch Blast that require an attack roll count? What about spells with no attack roll? We are all told at school water vapour and carbon dioxide are the top two greenhouse gases, and that they absorb thermal infra red radiation, trap heat and warm up the Earth. My question is how do they do that? Why can't Oxygen or Nitrogen or any other gas not absorb infra red radiation as well as water vapour or CO2? Singular vs. Plural with Multiple Gerunds as Subject (IE: [Gerund] and [Gerund] are/is [something].) I'm trying to find out whether I should use a singular or plural verb when there are multiple gerunds as the subject of the sentence. For example:  Running the correct course and keeping a steady pace are/is necessary in order to win.  With either one of these by itself, &quot;is&quot; would be correct:  Running the correct course is necessary in order to win. Keeping a steady pace is necessary in  order to win.  With both gerunds combined, I can't seem to figure out whether the verb should stay singular since each phrase is singular, or if it should become plural since there are two connected by &quot;and&quot;. If we just treat the gerunds as regular nouns, then obviously it would become &quot;are&quot;, but I'm not sure if gerunds have the exact same rules as regular nouns. I know that if the sentence was:  Running the correct course and keeping a steady pace are both necessary.  That &quot;are&quot; would be correct, but without the &quot;both&quot; it sounds incorrect to me. Does anyone know the official rule here? Flex: Figure out when the running swf was compiled? Where can I ask about Software Licenses/Licensing? NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 23s! [plymouthd:305] I get this error message   NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 23s! [plymouthd:305]    on the startup of my system (even with live-cd).  My PC is a dell inspiron 7559 with intel graphic and nvidia.  UPDATE - this issue also happens when attempting to install ubuntu 18.10 using LiveUSB Let $b>0.$ Evaluate $\lim_{n \to \infty} \int^{b}_{0} \frac{\sin nx}{nx}dx$ I'm stumped at the last part of this problem. Could anyone advise, please? Thank you.  Here is  my  proof.   Define  $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ by $$ f(x) = \left\{\begin{aligned} &amp;\frac{\sin nx}{nx}&amp;&amp;, x \neq0 \\ &amp;1 &amp;&amp;, x=0 \end{aligned} \right.$$   Hence, $$f(x) = \sum^{\infty}_{k=0}(-1)^k\frac{(nx)^{2k}}{(2k+1)!} , \forall x \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ and } f \in {\mathscr R[0,b]}.$$  $$\int^{b}_{0} \frac{\sin nx}{nx}dx = \int^{b}_{0}f(x)dx=\sum^{\infty}_{k=0}\int^{b}_{0}(-1)^k\frac{(nx)^{2k}}{(2k+1)!}dx= \sum^{\infty}_{n=0}(-1)^k\frac{(n)^{2k}b^{2k+1}}{(2k+1)(2k+1)!}$$  $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum^{\infty}_{k=0}(-1)^k\frac{(n)^{2k}b^{2k+1}}{(2k+1)(2k+1)!}=  ?$$