I have the following question:  My laptop randomly shuts down, only if I move it. Sometimes it shuts down, sometimes it doesn't. I keep my laptop on for 12+ hrs a day, and it never shuts down, given I don't move it. when I move it, sometimes it shuts down, sometimes it doesn't. I don't hear anything rattling when I shake my PC. The move could be a 4-cm move and it'll happen, or it could be a whole 2 meters etc. Any guesses on why? I've had this computer for 4 years without any problem like this before.  Please let me know where I can put my question.
Where can I ask questions about the computer problems I have been facing?  Current problems I am facing with my computers:   Windows 7 errors random "Blue screens of Death" computer randomly freezing up Xfire challenges
How do I upgrade to the unreleased version of Ubuntu for testing? Prove that $2730$ divides $n^{13} - n$ for all integers $n$. Prove that $2730$ divides $n^{13} - n$ for all integers $n$.   What I attempted is breaking $2730$ into $2, 3, 5$, and $7, 13$. Thus if I prove each prime factor divides by $n^{13} - n$ for all integers $n$, it will prove the original problem.   I already proved $2, 3$, and $5$ work. Struggling with how to do $91$?  Other solutions are welcome, but they should be associated with mod and solutions of this kind, because my answer should pertain to what was learned in class.  (Edit: Fixed the 91 problem, being slow today...In any case, I've got this problem now, so no answers are necessary. Posting my own soon.) Prove that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ....... = 1 I've often heard that instead of adding up to a little less than one, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... = 1. Is there any way to prove this using equations without using Sigma, or is it just an accepted fact? I need it without Sigma so I can explain it to my little sister.  It is not a duplicate because this one does not use Sigma, and the one marked as duplicate does. I want it to use variables and equations. What is the time span of The Last Jedi? When a ball is tossed straight up, does it experience momentary equilibrium at top of its path? This question has been asked many times all over the Internet and answers can be found on places such as yahoo and ask.com, but I'm not satisfied with those answers and I don't trust the validity of those places.  This seems like a more appropriate place to ask.  So, here's my train of thought and I would like to ask you if you think I'm right or wrong.  Even though most of the answers point to the fact that the ball does not achieve equilibrium because the force of gravity is constantly acting upon it, thus causing an acceleration, I still think there's a moment of equilibrium and here's why:  When the ball is traveling up, it's accelerating towards the ground and eventually reaches a point at which its speed reaches 0.  At this moment, isn't the reason the speed is 0 is due to the fact that net force is 0?  The force that made the ball travel in the upward direction was canceled out by the gravitational force.  So, the sum of forces at that brief moment is equal to 0, otherwise the ball would be moving.  I don't think gravity is the only force acting on the ball at that moment, since the throwing force was acting on it as well, until both canceled each other out for that brief moment.  Am I right or wrong? How do you evaluate this integral $\int \frac{6x^{3}+7x^2-12x+1}{\sqrt{x^2+4x+6}}dx$ $$\int \frac{6x^{3}+7x^2-12x+1}{\sqrt{x^2+4x+6}}dx$$  I have met this complex integral today, how do you evaluate this? Can you do this in more steps?  Is this an elliptic integral? I don't know how to evaluate this integral at all. Java: Avoid inserting duplicate in arraylist Hyperlinks are not visible in the generated PDF CV How to find the matrix of a quadratic form? I was wondering. If I have a bilinear symmetric form, it is easy to find its matrix. But, when I have a quadratic form, which is the procedure to do that?  I heard that one possibility is: If $q$ is my quadratic form, then $$f(x,y) = \frac{1}{4}q(x+y) - \frac{1}{4}q(x-y)$$ is the bilinear symmetric form associated, so the method reduces to find the matrix of $f(x,y).$   The point is that seems a little noising... How to find, in practice, the matrix of quadratic form?  Thanks in advance. What is the function of the "Sticky edges" on/off setting in displays? I have installed Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise Pangolin). If I open System Settings &gt;&gt; Displays there is a new (?) on/off button for a setting named Sticky edges.  Can someone tell me what this setting is supposed to control? Matrices A+B=AB implies A commutes with B $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']; not returning full query string $V$ be a vector space , $T:V \to V$ be a linear operator , then is $\ker (T) \cap R(T) \cong R(T)/R(T^2) $? Let $V$ be a vector space , $T:V \to V$ be a linear operator , then is it true that   $\ker (T) \cap R(T) \cong R(T)/R(T^2) $ ( where $R(T)$ denotes the range of $T$ ) ?    I know that the statement is true when $V$ is finite dimensional as I can show that if $V$ is finite   dimensional , then $\dim (\ker (T) \cap R(T))=rank (T) - rank (T^2)=\dim R(T)/R(T^2)$ ,   but I don't know what happens in general . Please help . Thanks in advance Whoever or whomever: 'happy for ___ has the pleasure of working with you next.' So sad to lose you, yet happy for whomever has the pleasure of working with you next. How soon can I re-enter the USA having stayed for 90 days under the Visa Waiver Program? I am currently visiting the USA from the UK (I am a UK citizen) and am intending on staying here for the full 90 days under the Visa Waiver Program.     How long would I have to stay out of the US at the end of this period before returning again?    Would I have to return to the UK, or could I stay with friends in another country (such as Canada) for a while? Detecting an undefined object property What's the best way of checking if an object property in JavaScript is undefined? My understanding of the Stern–Gerlach experiment is that neutral (0 total charge) particles are sent through a non-homogeneous magnetic field, with the expectation that the field will push that particle's path higher or lower on a detector because of the collective spin of that particle. While the detector can detect particles in a two-dimensional surface, the results of the experiment are that particles appear in only two localized areas directly above the path of the particle stream, or directly below the path of the particle stream - spin up or spin down. The conclusions from these measurements are that the particle, when measured, will always have about the same magnitude.  Why does this not follow from classical mechanical theory related to magnetism? If you shot a magnet through a similar apparatus, I would expect the magnet to be rotated to align with the magnetic field in some way which, at high enough field strengths relative to the mass of the magnet, would cause us to measure basically the same magnitude as if the magnet entered the apparatus pre-aligned with the field.  How is my explanation incorrect? How to sort an array of objects containing null elements? Restoring a backup to an older version of SQL Server The comment with the Flagged Posts that seems to be new as of today states there are posts with flags awaiting my attention but the counter shows zero and when I go into flagged posts there is nothing waiting for me.