I would like to upgrade my python3 version from 3.2.3 to 3.3.x version. I am using Ubuntu 12.04   Referred this . Is it the same procedure to upgrade the python version?  If so, then what must be run instead of sudo apt-get build-dep python3.4?  I have a doubt in the procedure because it is updating in same version line 3.4.x. Please refer and say so as to avoid further problems.  Edit 1: Also referred this link  but did not help me.
I have downloaded Python 3.3 from the official site but no idea how to install it.   I'm using Ubuntu 12.04
how to change a pose lib using script I want to make a button that changes the active poselib to another one from the list, a specific one. I look in the console and can't see any operator. any ideas? Profitable strategy in coin tossing? There is a coin with a probability $p$ of heads, and $1-p$ of tails. Tosses are independent of each other. When you bet an amount of money $x$, you receive $2x$ if it lands heads, and you lose what you bet if it lands tails.  We are going to use the following strategy:  You start betting an initial amount $x_0$. Every time you lose, you bet twice what you bet in the previous throw. You keep doing this, until you win, at which point you retire, or start again, betting $x_0$.  The interesting case of course is when $p &lt; 0.5$.  The question is: How profitable is this strategy? Intuitively I feel that eventually I can always win an arbitrarily large amount of money. But that can't be entirely right ("the house always wins!"). So what am I missing here? What's the expected win in each run?  Also, does this sort of strategy have a name in the literature?  P.S.: Found this later, I'm not a git master, but I have been working with it for some time now, with several different projects.  In each project, I always git clone [repository] and from that point, can always git pull, so long as I don't have outstanding changes, of course.  Recently, I had to revert to a previous branch, and did so with git checkout 4f82a29.  When I was again ready to pull, I found that I had to set my branch back to master.  Now, I can not pull using a straight git pull but instead, have to specify git pull origin master, which is annoying, and indicates to me that I don't fully understand what is going on.  What has changed which does not allow me to do a straight git pull without specifying origin master, and how to I change it back?  UPDATE:  -bash-3.1$ cat config [core]     repositoryformatversion = 0     filemode = true     bare = false     logallrefupdates = true [branch "master"] [remote "origin"]     url = git@github.com:user/project.git     fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*   UPDATE 2: To be clear, I understand that my original method may have been incorrect, but I need to fix this repo so that I can simply use git pull again.  Currently, git pull results in:  -bash-3.1$ git pull You asked me to pull without telling me which branch you want to merge with, and 'branch.master.merge' in your configuration file does not tell me either.  Please name which branch you want to merge on the command line and try again (e.g. 'git pull  '). See git-pull(1) for details on the refspec.  If you often merge with the same branch, you may want to configure the following variables in your configuration file:      branch.master.remote =      branch.master.merge =      remote..url =      remote..fetch =   See git-config(1) for details.   I can tell git pull which branch to merge, and it works correctly, but git pull does not work as it did originally before my git checkout. I'm well aware of the combinatorial variant of the proof, i.e. noting that each formula is a different representation for the number of subsets of a set of $n$ elements. I'm curious if there's a series of algebraic manipulations that can lead from $\sum\limits_{i=0}^n \binom{n}{i}$ to $2^n$. Show that if $a$ has order $3\bmod p$ then $a+1$ has order $6\bmod p$. Show that if $a$ has order $3\bmod p$ then $a+1$  has order $6\bmod p$. I know I am supposed to use primitive roots but I think this is where I am getting caught up. The definition of primitive root is "if $a$ is a least residue and the order of $a\bmod p$ is $\phi(m)$ then $a$ is a primitive root of $m$. But I really am not sure how to use this to my advantage in solving anything.  Thanks! Gay rights – does Star Trek ever address this issue? I am aware of the picture of the man wearing the 'dress' from TNG, which promotes gender equality, but are gay rights ever addressed in Star Trek at all? (All seasons accepted.) Prove that you can make change for any amount greater than 7 cents using only 3 and 5 cent coins. I am pretty sure this question has something to do with the Least Common Multiple.    I was thinking that the proof was that every number either is or isn't a multiple of $3, 5$, and $8\left(3 + 5\right)$. If it isn't a multiple of $3,5$, or $8$, great. You have nothing to prove. But if it is divisible by one of them, I couldn't find a general proof that showed that it wouldn't be divisible by another one. Say $15$, it is divisible by $3$ and $5$, but not $8$. Short story about interstellar travel gone wrong Trying to find a story I read a couple of years ago in an anthology, not sure when the story dates from but likely to be recent - the last decade or so.   The story has passengers travelling between stars via a series of jumps. The calibration of the drive is affected by a special metal, any of which has to be stored in a shielded compartment (I think the jumps were measured in 'degrees'). One of the passengers unwittingly takes some of this metal on board, which throws off the calculations for the jumps, and they jump into an alternative universe where there are no signs of any humans ever existing. They start to try to reverse their steps to get back to the known universe, but the reverse calculation seems impossible.  That's as much as I read of the story before I lost the book. After many dreams (feverish nightmares!) re-living this story, I need to know how it ends. I know it's not much to go on. The story name, author, or the anthology it appears in would be fantastic. Did something change in the behavior of blocking users' votes if they don't have sufficient rep to vote? I've just noticed that if you try to vote without having a privilege to vote, you're greeted with such message:        So, that's interesting. Does it mean that if I gain 125 (or 15, in case I'm upvoting not having 15 reps) rep on that site, my "suggested" vote goes public and until then it would be recorded as it's done with anon feedback?  And until this change, the votes weren't recorded as anonymous, or has the new message saying that it acts as feedback been added just to not upset users? Opening Raster stored in Esri Geodatabase using QGIS Is there a way to open a raster that is stored in ESRI V10.0 Geodatabase in QGIS V2.4?    I can open the vector layer, but there does not seems to be a way to open a raster. How do I make Units efficiently? I just blew almost all my money on a really cool lookin' ship. How do I regain solvency without spending a lot of time fiddling around in my inventory?  At the moment I've found a sequence of steps that'll turn 50 carbon and 100 Plutonium into ~5000 Units (by creating Suspension Fluid and then turning it into Electron Vapor). Are there better recipes or sequences of recipes I should look for? Or should I just drop the whole thing and go mine a particular mineral? So I'm trying to install Visual Studio 2015 Community on my Windows Server 2012 R2 box which will end up being a Jenkins build server. Attempting to do so gives an error saying that I need to install KB 2919355.    So I attempt to download the right KB from the . The two files that I would assume to work are either Windows8.1-KB2919355-x64.msu and Windows8.1-KB2919355-x86.msu (just to try) and neither update work, saying that the update is not applicable.    I've not been able to get this working and I haven't been able to find a proper way to fix this. Can anyone offer any suggestions or solutions? Thanks! Flag apron shows superfluous closing anchor tag I awoke this morning to a spam flag on a site I moderate, and noticed this when I went to read the post.    Notice answered&lt;/a&gt;, which I imagine isn't meant to have the &lt;/a&gt; there.  I also confirmed that this displays asked&lt;/a&gt; for other types of flags (namely, closed without comment).   I looked around for a duplicate of this but can't seem to find it, so maybe it's a recent change? Understanding 74LVC245 datasheet and current source/sink I'm using a SN74LVC245A () to shift 5V TTL down to 3.3V so I can read the signals with a Raspberry Pi.  However I am getting really weird results (a 60Hz input signal is picked up by the Pi at anything between 110Hz and 320Hz) and I'm really confused about how to read the datasheet to figure out whether I need pullup or pulldown resistors.  The datasheet says on page 4 the "high-level output current" is -24mA, and the "low-level output current" is 24mA.  So to me this means that when the device is outputting a high signal, it is able to sink 24mA of current (since outputting a negative amount of current suggests the current is going into the device instead.)  But then if you're outputting a positive voltage, isn't that sourcing current?  Why is the figure listed as a negative value?  Is anyone able to explain what these figures actually mean?  When I disconnect the 74LVC245 output from my GPIO pin, I still get weird signals from the floating input pin so I am assuming this means the 74LVC245 output is also floating in one state, but I don't know in which state it is (i.e. is it left floating on a high output signal or a low one?)  It doesn't really make sense to be floating on a high output signal since it's a level converter and the whole point is to maintain the correct 'high' voltage, so do I need pulldown resistors to handle the low output?  If so, why does the datasheet seem to suggest the chip can both source and sink current?  (In my mind, source current means the device can output a current with a positive voltage, while sinking current means the device takes in anything and connects it to GND, so perhaps that is where I am going wrong.)  Anyway I'm quite confused so any clarification would be much appreciated! What would be an appropriate opposite of "exceed"? Using right-hand Riemann sum to evaluate the limit of $ \frac{n}{n^2+1}+ \cdots+\frac{n}{n^2+n^2}$ I'm asked to prove that $$\lim_{n \to \infty}\left(\frac{n}{n^2+1}+\frac{n}{n^2+4}+\frac{n}{n^2+9}+\cdots+\frac{n}{n^2+n^2}\right)=\frac{\pi}{4}$$ This looks like it can be solved with Riemann sums, so I proceed:  \begin{align*} \lim_{n \to \infty}\left(\frac{n}{n^2+1}+\frac{n}{n^2+4}+\frac{n}{n^2+9}+\cdots+\frac{n}{n^2+n^2}\right)&amp;=\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{n}{n^2+k^2}\\ &amp;=\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^{n}(\frac{1}{n})(\frac{n^2}{n^2+k^2})\\ &amp;=\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^{n}(\frac{1}{n})(\frac{1}{1+(k/n)^2})\\ &amp;=\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{k=1}^{n}f(\frac{k}{n})(\frac{k-(k-1)}{n})\\ &amp;=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1}{1+x^2}dx=\frac{\pi}{4} \end{align*}  where $f(x)=\frac{1}{1+x^2}$. Is this correct, are there any steps where I am not clear? Can an integrity check be run against a USB boot disk? Why do we notate the greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ as $(a,b)$? In my textbook on elementary number theory from a class last year, as well as elsewhere through my academic experience and even posts here, I often see the greatest common divisor notated as $(a,b)$ (where this represents the greatest common divisor of $a,b$).  My question is, why is such an unusual notation used? I say it's unusual (if not a bit absurd), for a couple of reasons:   It is unintuitive. It does not grant the reader an immediate knowledge of what it means. In particular, I can easily see it being misinterpreted as an ordered pair of points, and not as a function (which it basically is and I touch on in a second) or representing a single value. Good notation would be immediately understood, no? One should not struggle with parsing through the context or meaning. A clearer notation is often used, and just three letters away. You could certainly think of $(a,b)$ as an ordered pair, if we consider it a function. I often see the alternate $gcd(a,b)$: a function, which takes in two inputs ($a$ and $b$), and outputs their greatest common divisor (or factor, if you prefer). Merely adding the three letters makes the notation clearer by clarifying it is  a function, and using a relatively well-accepted acronym. (Or, at least, I often hear it abbreviated "g.c.d." in school.)   I've mulled this over for a while and I can't think of much without borrowing inspiration from other "unusual" notations. For example:   Common understanding in context: consider the $\log(x)$ function. Depending on context, without a base stated as seen here, it can be presumed to mean whatever is most "appropriate." It could be base $e$ (common in mathematics), base $10$ (common in engineering), or base $2$ (common in computer science). The ambiguity is essentially resolved by context in other words - personally, not a fan of that (I like the explicit stating of bases for full clarity), but if such a motivation holds elsewhere, it might stand to reason that $(a,b)$ could just be taken as a shorthand and "understood" in the context of number theory to simply be the greatest common divisor. That it is in fact used despite $gcd(a,b)$ being clearer and somewhat common also does seem to suggest this playing a role. Perhaps it just started that way and it kept being used. For example,  (based on a ) regarding how logarithms, roots, and exponentiation can be unintuitive from a notation perspective, and proposes an alternative, easier to understand notation. I haven't been in middle school in nearly a decade, but guessing from discussions online, that obviously hasn't really picked up too much. In that sense, perhaps it's like that for $(a,b)$: like we still notate exponentiation, etc., the same way today despite how counterintuitive it is (at least for students), perhaps it just "stuck" and proliferated?   I wasn't able to easily find any reason why online, and it bugs me a bit, so I ask:     Why do we so unintuitively notate the greatest common divisor of two numbers $a,b$ as $(a,b)$?   I of course recognize that this is somewhat moot in light of how easily it's made clear - as established above, all I have to do is append the front of the parenthetical by $gcd$ or $gcf$ to make it way better. And of course, people do that. But I'm more curious in where this ambiguous former notation arose and, in light of a better notation, why it is still used today. What can I use to typeset MATLAB code in my document? iOS crash log catch, debug info.. Catch and send via email to the Dev team