Ubuntu says " not enough space on disk" when trying to install updates Every time I use my computer it tells me there are updates to install but whenever I try to install them it doesn't work and says there's "not enough space on disk". I've only used 109.2GB of 485.8GB according to the Disk Usage Analyzer. Why does it think that there's not enough space? Can someone please help me with this? Thanks.   Filesystem     1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on udev             2872800         4   2872796   1% /dev tmpfs             577704      1172    576532   1% /run /dev/dm-1      474434712 106694932 343616800  24% / none                   4         0         4   0% /sys/fs/cgroup none                5120         0      5120   0% /run/lock none             2888504    136268   2752236   5% /run/shm none              102400        60    102340   1% /run/user /dev/sda1         240972    170231     58300  75% /boot
Can't upgrade due to low disk space on /boot I try to do do-release-upgrade but then I get:       Not enough free disk space      The upgrade has aborted. The upgrade needs a total of 25.7 M free   space on disk '/boot'. Please free at least an additional 25.7 M of   disk space on '/boot'. Empty your trash and remove temporary packages   of former installations using 'sudo apt-get clean'.   Output of df:                      237251272 214797108  10402504  96% / udev                    488120         4    488116   1% /dev tmpfs                   198676       668    198008   1% /run none                      5120         0      5120   0% /run/lock none                    496684         0    496684   0% /run/shm /dev/sda1               233191    225867         0 100% /boot   How come there is no space left on boot? Here's the output of ls -as /boot:  total 221839     4 .     4 ..   645 abi-2.6.32-34-generic-pae   698 abi-2.6.35-30-generic-pae   727 abi-2.6.38-12-generic-pae   727 abi-3.0.0-12-generic-pae   727 abi-3.0.0-13-generic-pae   727 abi-3.0.0-14-generic-pae   727 abi-3.0.0-15-generic-pae   727 abi-3.0.0-16-generic-pae   727 abi-3.0.0-17-generic-pae   727 abi-3.0.0-19-generic-pae   761 abi-3.0.0-20-generic-pae   115 config-2.6.32-34-generic-pae   128 config-2.6.35-30-generic-pae   136 config-2.6.38-12-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-12-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-13-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-14-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-15-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-16-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-17-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-19-generic-pae   140 config-3.0.0-20-generic-pae     5 grub 10773 initrd.img-2.6.32-34-generic-pae 13619 initrd.img-2.6.35-30-generic-pae 15365 initrd.img-2.6.38-12-generic-pae 16481 initrd.img-3.0.0-12-generic-pae 16487 initrd.img-3.0.0-13-generic-pae 16501 initrd.img-3.0.0-14-generic-pae 16476 initrd.img-3.0.0-15-generic-pae 16481 initrd.img-3.0.0-16-generic-pae 16478 initrd.img-3.0.0-17-generic-pae    12 lost+found   174 memtest86+.bin   176 memtest86+_multiboot.bin  1700 System.map-2.6.32-34-generic-pae  1841 System.map-2.6.35-30-generic-pae  2115 System.map-2.6.38-12-generic-pae  2141 System.map-3.0.0-12-generic-pae  2141 System.map-3.0.0-13-generic-pae  2143 System.map-3.0.0-14-generic-pae  2146 System.map-3.0.0-15-generic-pae  2147 System.map-3.0.0-16-generic-pae  2147 System.map-3.0.0-17-generic-pae  2148 System.map-3.0.0-19-generic-pae  2149 System.map-3.0.0-20-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-2.6.32-34-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-2.6.35-30-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-2.6.38-12-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-12-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-13-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-14-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-15-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-16-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-17-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-19-generic-pae     2 vmcoreinfo-3.0.0-20-generic-pae  4092 vmlinuz-2.6.32-34-generic-pae  4347 vmlinuz-2.6.35-30-generic-pae  4567 vmlinuz-2.6.38-12-generic-pae  4675 vmlinuz-3.0.0-12-generic-pae  4676 vmlinuz-3.0.0-13-generic-pae  4681 vmlinuz-3.0.0-14-generic-pae  4698 vmlinuz-3.0.0-15-generic-pae  4700 vmlinuz-3.0.0-16-generic-pae  4700 vmlinuz-3.0.0-17-generic-pae  4703 vmlinuz-3.0.0-19-generic-pae  4705 vmlinuz-3.0.0-20-generic-pae   Output of uname -a:   Linux kitsch 3.0.0-17-generic-pae #30-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 8 17:53:35 UTC 2012 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
How to cancel a credit card and verify it was closed Does payment in goods count as "income" for tax purposes? Can someone help me elucidate the definition of "income" from a tax perspective? More specifically, if Joe is paid for his work in avocados instead of dollars, then would Joe be exempt from paying any income tax for the year? Or would the value of avocados earned for the year be translated into dollars which would then be considered Joe's annual income? If so, what guidelines would one use to make this translation? (Make the assumption that Joe does not sell the avocados (for dollars) at a later date and either eats them or trades them for other real property)  What if he was paid in gold instead of avocados? Selenium Webdriver: No such element exception even though element gets available after waiting for some time What is the maximum value of $n$ if $n + 5$ divides $n^5 + 5$, $n$ being a natural number? I tried to solve by binomial theorem but it failed. Finding the fallacy in this broken proof Today, a friend gave me a "proof" of $1=2$ and challenged me to find the fallacy.     $1 = 1$      $1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 ...$      $1 = 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...$      $1 = 2 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...$      $1 = 2 + 0 + 0 ...$      $1 = 2$   My answer was that once you turn the initial $1 + 1$ into a 2, everything is offset so a $-1$ is always left at the end no matter how many times it is repeated. This negative one balances out the $2$ at the beginning so $1=1$ still holds true. I.e.  $$1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 ... = 1 + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) = 2 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) - 1$$  However, my friend claimed that my answer only applies if the $+ 1 - 1$ repeats for a finite number of times. He argues that because the sequence repeats infinitely and things work differently when working with infinity, my answer is not valid.  Can anyone enlighten me to the true fallacy in this proof? Easiest way to setup Ubuntu as a VPN server What should I focus on when converting photos to black and white? When I look at the black and white photographs from professional photographers, I notice that they have a special look. Not a specific style—obviously each photographer has her own style—but a look which make them different from similar color photos, a special feeling, which makes them shine specifically as black and white and makes color irrelevant.  When I convert my own photos to black and white in Lightroom, they don't have any special look. They just look like any other of my photos, simply converted to black and white. I imagine that there are two reasons for that:   Some scenes are better for black and white. Talented and/or experienced photographers know which scenes would be beautiful in black and white, and shoot specifically those scenes. Moreover, they know how to adapt the scene itself and the lighting to black and white (for instance by not relying on the color contrast itself).  In my case, I don't think much about shooting for black and white. It comes only in post-processing, when I either think that the photo will look great in black and white (and very often, it doesn't), or I find the colors to be poor and turn the photo to black and white (which actually doesn't make the photo any better). Post-processing is much more complex than clicking on black and white button in an app. It involves not only adjusting black and white mix (i.e. raising or lowering the lightness of specific colors), but doing lots of other adjustments.  In my case, I do black and white mix, but other adjustments I do are similar to what I would do for a color photo: actually, I may even do them on a color photo, and only then turn it to black and white.   So, what should I take in account if I want to have decent black and white photographs? Are there specific techniques, tips, tricks or warnings for someone who usually shots in color and wants to start black and white photography?  Let me show some examples. Are those scenes not great for black and white photos in the first place? Or can they be salvaged through proper post-processing?  1.  First, a poorly done photo from Scotland with dubious composition and very poor colors that I was unable to correct in Lightroom.  The same image in black and white isn't much better. The difference between the trees and the grass on the hill is barely visible. Houses on the hill fade with the sky much more than in the original version.      2.  Here's a photo of a cute pet.  In black and white, the gap between the mouse's ear and the background is barely visible. There is absolutely no benefit compared to the original.      3.  Finally, an example of a much more contrasty picture. The black and white version is weird, since the lack of color makes it difficult to understand whether the soil is the actual sand or something else. I find the sky to be weird as well, and making the blue channel darker or lighter in Lightroom haven't changed that. $$L~=~ \frac{1}{2} \dot{q}  \sin^2{q} $$  Is it zero or not defined? I want to import graphics into my main input file using the macro \includegraphics. It does not work if the filename contains spaces.   also discusses this subject, but there is no solution there.  My compilation routine is latex->dvips->ps2pdf (because of PSTricks). Show that $e^3 > 20$ Looking for book: contact with aliens, five different races, mismatched claws, biological imperative to breed Why does shrinkage work? In order to solve problems of model selection, a number of methods (LASSO, ridge regression, etc.) will shrink the coefficients of predictor variables towards zero. I am looking for an intuitive explanation of why this improves predictive ability. If the true effect of the variable was actually very large, why doesn't shrinking the parameter result in a worse prediction? Is a switches voltage and current rating a hard limit? What happens if you increment an iterator that is equal to the end iterator of an STL container Who's the random kid standing in the gathering at the end? I know that if you create a custom object, with an Auto-number Name field with a format, e.g. MYC-{0000} you will be able to create records from MYC-0000 to MYC-9999.  The moment you create 10,000 records Salesforce happily extends the range and you can then create MYC-10000 to MYC-99999.  My question is, what is the limit to this - for obvious reasons its a difficult one to test. I know instances that have exceeded 999,999 e.g. MYC-1000000 but am interested to know how far this extends to.  EDIT: When the field has a data type of Text the maximum length is 80. Is it safe to assume that the same is true for Autonumber (though that would be a very big number)? How to calculate what this power series converges against? (double factorials) Creating symbol with size and color based on two variables in ArcMap? After having read various articles on this site about WWW or Non-WWW website setup, ,  and , and after having setup a correct redirection rule in .Htaccess to at least eliminate duplicate contents (currently the non-www solution (e.g. http://example.com) I have a feeling that my site rank less since I changed this.   My confusion was strengthened by these two opponents:     &amp;     Could the change of www.example.com >> http://example.com have a factual impact on ranking?  say either is better or worse. Are they holding information back?  I am confused fellow folks...  As much as I would like to separate facts from fiction, I am aware that not all the good valid information is written. Not on google webmaster site and perhaps not elsewhere. If so it seems out of date!  Does or does not a WWW domain impact SEO/rank better than its NON-WWW version? (Given that you have setup a proper redirect to avoid duplicates and go with one) Let $X$ be a transitive $G$-set. ($G$ acts on  $X$ transitively.) If $X$ is finite and has at least two elements, show that there is some element $g$ $\in$ G which does not have any fixed points; that is, such that $g$$($$x$$)$ $\ne$ $x$ for all $x$ $\in$ $X$  I am trying to use contradiction, but it is not very clear to me why this is true.