The programs that I open are behind the Unity launcher.    How do I solve this issue?
I'm on Ubuntu 16.04.1 at the moment, and system windows like the Files window, Terminal or System Software open behind the Unity launcher, which means they are partially hidden behind it. I can move them with Alt+F7, but I'd like a more permanent solution to this problem.
How to check internet access on Android? InetAddress never times out I can say "I feed someone". Am I forced to say "I give someone a drink", or is there a single word for this (as in "I [verb] someone")?  Unfortunately my thesaurus can't really help me. itoa() is a really handy function to convert a number to a string. Linux does not seem to have itoa(), is there an equivalent function or do I have to use sprintf(str, "%d", num)? How to show that $\sum\limits_{k=0}^n (-1)^k\tfrac{{ {n}\choose{k}}}{{ {x+k}\choose{k}}} = \frac{x}{x+n}$ I'm trying to show that      $$\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k\frac{{ {n}\choose{k}}}{{ {x+k}\choose{k}}} = \frac{x}{x+n}$$   I've tried expanding this using definition of binomial coefficient, then binomial expansion, now I'm using induction to simplify $\sum_{k=0}^m (-1)^k\frac{{ {n}\choose{k}}}{{ {x+k}\choose{k}}}$, but it looks very inelegant, is there a better way? Is it possible to animate which characters of a text object are assigned to a material? "This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat." Deciphering the RSA encrypted message from three different public keys 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? In propositional logic, the statement "If pigs can fly, then elephants can lay eggs." validates to true because the antecedent validates to false.  In other words, given $a \rightarrow b$, if a is false, the entire statement is true. Why?  Just because the antecendent is false doesn't mean that another fact depends on it, right? There was a reason why I constantly failed physics at school and university, and that reason was, apart from the fact I was immensely lazy, that I mentally refused to &quot;believe&quot; more advanced stuff until I understand the fundamentals (which I, eventually, never did). As such, one of the most fundamental things in physics that I still don't understand (a year after dropping out from the university) is the concept of . No one cared to explain what a field actually is, they just used to throw in a bunch of formulas and everyone was content. The school textbook definition for a field (electromagnetic in this particular case, but they were similar), as I remember it, goes like:  An electromagnetic field is a special kind of substance by which charged moving particles or physical bodies with a magnetic moment interact.  A special kind of substance, are they for real? This sounds like the authors themselves didn't quite understand what a field is so they decided to throw in a bunch of buzzwords to make it sounds right. I'm fine with the second half but a special kind of substance really bugs me, so I'd like to focus on that. Is a field material? Apparently, it isn't. It doesn't consist of particles like my laptop or even the light. If it isn't material, is it real or is it just a concept that helps to explain our observations? While this is prone to speculations, I think we can agree that in scope of this discussion particles actually do exist and laws of physics don't (the latter are nothing but human ideas so I suspect Universe doesn't &quot;know&quot; a thing about them, at least if we're talking raw matter and don't take it on metalevel where human knowledge, being a part of the Universe, makes the Universe contain laws of physics). Any laws are only a product of human thinking while the stars are likely to exist without us homo sapiens messing around. Or am I wrong here too? I hope you already see why I hate physics. Is a field not material but still real? Can something &quot;not touchable&quot; by definition be considered part of our Universe by physicists? I used to imagine that a &quot;snapshot&quot; of our Universe in time would contain information about each particle and its position, and this would've been enough to &quot;de&quot; it but I guess my programmer metaphors are largely off the track. (Oh, and I know that the uncertainty principle makes such (de)serialization impossible — I only mean that I thought the Universe can be &quot;defined&quot; as the set of all material objects in it). Is such assumption false? At this point, if fields indeed are not material but are part of the Universe, I don't really see how they are different from  except for perhaps a more geeky flavor. When I talked about this with the teacher who helped me to prepare for the exams (which I did pass, by the way, it was before I dropped out), she said to me that, if I wanted hardcore definitions,  a field is a function that returns a value for a point in space.  Now this finally makes a hell lot of sense to me but I still don't understand how mathematical functions can be a part of the Universe and shape the reality. "done" vs "have done" How to start/stop/restart a thread in Java? Constrains relationship I have the following design. Each user has it's own contacts, it's own hosts and assign those to a domain which belongs only to him.   I want to insure that the host you assign to the domain belongs to the user that domain is assigned to.  Is it something that I have to insure in my application logic?  If I set domains.user_id foreign key to reference host.user_id and user_id.id does it eliminate my issue?    By the way can anyone suggest me a better design for my schema? Confused About Trigonometric Substitution Do $T$-invariant subspaces necessarily have a $T$-invariant complement? While writing a proposal at work today I needed to mention a list of things and within that list were multi-part items. It seems like replacing the comma with a semi-colon in this situation would make the sentence easier to understand, but is it correct usage?  With standard punctuation this could get confusing:       Some of my favorite things to do are   camping, playing football and   baseball, watching Laurel and Hardy   Movies, and traveling.   Proposed alternative. Is this acceptable usage?       Some of my favorite things to do are   camping; playing football and   baseball; watching Laurel and Hardy   Movies; and traveling. How to install PostgreSQL 9.2 with PostGIS 2.0 on Ubuntu 11.10 (or higher)? Can we build capacitors on a PCB board? For the magnitude of nF or µF capacitors, I hope I can build them on a PCB board. The capacitor is like a two metal layer and something between them.   Is this possible?   Not buying the capacitor, just design the capacitor on the PCB board. Double metal layers on the PCB board. What translation occurs when writing to a file that was opened in text mode that does not occur in binary mode? Specifically in MS Visual C.  unsigned char buffer[256]; for (int i = 0; i &lt; 256; i++) buffer[i]=i; int size  = 1; int count = 256;   Binary mode:  FILE *fp_binary = fopen(filename, "wb"); fwrite(buffer, size, count, fp_binary);   Versus text mode:  FILE *fp_text = fopen(filename, "wt"); fwrite(buffer, size, count, fp_text); Prove that if $d \mid n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $\varphi(d) \mid \varphi(n)$. I want to prove that if $d \mid n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $\varphi(d) \mid \varphi(n)$.  It's given that $d \mid n$, so we know that $n = dm$, for some $m \in \mathbb{Z}$. Now, I want to show that $\varphi(d) \mid \varphi(n)$, i.e. that $\varphi(n) = k\varphi(d)$, for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Drawing a blank of where to go from here.