I am using 3 keyboard layouts (to be exact: English, , Russian). On Unity, when I pressed my "next layout" keybinding, layouts whould only be smitched in the order set in the settings window (English - Latex - Russian - English again...).  On Gnome, the story is completely different: it looks like it switches them in order of usage, like this:   Was on Russian, switched to English. Press keybinding -- back to Russian. Press again -- back to English. Press twice in a row -- Latex! Press once more -- English. Once more -- Latex! Twice -- Russian. Once more -- back to Latex.   If you have only two layouts you will never see a difference.  It's pretty obvious to me that these reorderings require some logic to be implemented, but I would like to turn that off and "freeze" the order. Is there a way, though?
Just installed Ubuntu 17.10 and it seems that the keyboard layout switching has changed its behavior.  In the previous version of Ubuntu (such as 16.04 Unity), if I have 3 different keyboard layouts (for example EN-TH-JA), hitting Super+Space would always cycle to the next layout in the same order (e.g. EN to TH to JA then back to EN).  However since Ubuntu 17.10, this is no longer the case. It cycles through the layout in the MRU (Most Recently Used) ordering. So suppose that the layout starts with EN, then I cycled to TH. Next time I hit Super+Space, it would give me EN instead of JA.   I tried to dig up and found that the culprit is the newly implemented DCONF settings inside org.gnome.desktop.input-sources and there seems to be no way to change this behavior.   So my question is: Is there a way to change this behavior to "static ordering" of keyboard layout switching?    (As a side-note, the new behavior is very bad when we have three or more layouts. Most of the time we as a user couldn't remember the MRU layouts, so layout switching is very inconvenient and much slower than already knowing what the next layout would be if static ordering is used.)  If there is no settings to change this behavior, where should I report this as a bug or a feature request?
Will installing Ubuntu using the "erase entire disk" option remove and erase all currently existing partitions? I'm considering ditching Windows 8 and doing a fully clean install of Ubuntu. However, I'm concerned because my computer came with a built-in 16 GB recovery partition that would need to be erased as well.   If I pick the "erase entire disk" option during installation, will it wipe out this recovery partition too? Classification of automorphisms of projective space $\forall a,b,c \in \mathbb{N}\!:\ a\mid b \Rightarrow ac\mid bc. $ Divisibility Proof Could someone verify this proof?  Given the following definition of divisibility $(\forall{a,b \in \mathbb{N}})[a \mid b \equiv (\exists{c \in \mathbb{N}})(ac=b)]$.  Statement: $(\forall{a,b,c \in \mathbb{N}})[(a\mid b) \rightarrow (ac\mid bc)] $ .  Proof:  Let $a,b \in \mathbb{N}$ be arbitrary.  Assuming that $a\mid b$, we can conclude that $\exists{d \in \mathbb{N}}$ such that $ad = b$.  By Algebra we can deduce the following sequence of statements.  If $(ad)=b$, then $(ad)c=bc$.  Therefore $(ac)d=bc$.  Hence by the definition of divisibility we know that $ac\mid bc$. SEO preference: does a site with WWW rank better than without WWW? I know mathematically the answer to this question is yes, and it's very obvious to see that the dimensions of a ratio cancel out, leaving behind a mathematically dimensionless quantity. However, I've been writing a  (the specifics of which are out of scope), which has me thinking about the problem because I decided to handle angle units as dimensioned quantities, which seemed natural to enable the unit conversion with degrees. The overall purpose of the library is to disallow operations that don't make sense because they violate the rules of dimensional analysis, e.g. adding a length quantity to an area quantity, and thus provide some built-in sanity checking to the computation. Treating radians as units made sense because of some of the properties that dimensioned quantities seemed to me to have:  The sum and difference of two quantities with the same dimension have the same physical meaning as both quantities separately. Quantities with the same dimension are meaningfully comparable to each other, and not meaningfully comparable (directly) to quantities with different dimensions. Dimensions may have different units that are scalar multiple (sometimes with a datum shift).  If the angle is treated as a dimension, my 3 made up properties are satisfied, and everything &quot;makes sense&quot; to me. I can't help thinking that the fact that radians are a ratio of lengths (SI defines them as m/m) is actually critically important, even though the length is cancelled out. For example, though radians and steradians are both dimensionless, it would be a logical error to take their sum. I also can't see how a ratio of something like (kg/kg) could be described as an &quot;angle&quot;. This seems to imply to me that not all dimensionless units are compatible, which seems analogous to how units with different dimensions are not compatible. And if not all dimensionless units are compatible, then the dimensionless &quot;dimension&quot; would violate made-up property #1 and cause me a lot of confusion. However, treating radians as having dimension also has a lot of issues, because now your trig functions have to be written in terms of $\cos(\text{angleUnit}) = \text{dimensionless unit}$ even though they are analytic functions (although I'm not convinced that's bad). Small-angle assumptions in this scheme would be defined as performing implicit unit conversions, which is logical given our trig function definitions but incompatible with how many functions are defined, especially since many authors neglect to mention they are making those assumptions. So I guess my question is: are all dimensionless quantities, but specifically angle quantities, really compatible with all other dimensionless quantities? And if not, don't they actually have dimension or at least the properties of dimension? Call to a member function prepare() on a non-object PHP Help Referencing bib files with spaces in the filename Biblatex: Don't show n.d. when no year is given Clearly, if Wolverine bleeds on the ground, a new Wolverine doesn't reconstitute himself from the drop. Presumably, if somehow his arm could be severed, that wouldn't happen there, either. If his head were cut off...probably not either.  So it seems that there's a minimum amount of contiguous body mass Wolverine has to have from which he can heal.  Maybe limbs are the limit...are there examples of Wolverine regenerating a lost limb? If so, well, this question. If not, is there anything else in the canon to suggest an answer? Want to cancel a 'Pending Erase' on iphone... Any suggestions? I lost my phone on vacation and activated 'Lost Mode' for a couple of days. The night before heading home I decided to do the Remote Erase ´cause I thought there's no way I'd get it back, I also called my carrier and canceled the data service on my number. The phone has been offline ever since but the hotel just called to say they found my phone at the spa and they are mailing it back to me. So I want to cancel the 'Pending Erase', all I care about is recovering all the pictures from that trip that I hadn't backed up on iCloud yet... Will removing the device from my iCloud account work?  And if I don't have service on the phone, will the 'Erase iPhone' command still go through when I turn it on?  Please help! I have two days to figure this out Say I want a random 1024-bit prime $p$.  The obviously-correct way to do this is select a random 1024-bit number and test its primality with the usual well-known tests.  But suppose instead that I do this:   select random odd 1024-bit number $n$ if $n$ is prime, return $n$ $n \leftarrow n+2$ goto 2   (This approach allows faster selection of primes via sieving.)  Since primes are not uniformly distributed on the number line, it would seem that this algorithm prefers primes that lie after long runs of composites.  Take a piece of the number line around $2^{1024}$ with x denoting a prime:     ---x-x----------------------------x------------------------x---x   Clearly our algorithm above is much more likely to find the 3rd prime above than to find the 2nd one.  Question: Is this a problem? Calculation of pressure from flow rate of water Anybody kindly help me to find how to calculate pressure in bar from flow rate. I have a pipe and from that I am transferring water at a constant flow rate of 5ml/min. At this flow rate, with a 0.5 cm diameter pipe, what will be the pressure generated by water? What do you call a person who does/thinks the opposite of the crowd for just that reason? An elementary proof of $\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\arctan x}{\sqrt{x(1-x^2)}}\,dx = \frac{1}{32}\sqrt{2\pi}\,\Gamma\left(\tfrac{1}{4}\right)^2$ Given that every class gets a minimum of 5 ability score improvements each at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 (Rogue and Fighter get more at other levels), do these ability score improvements occur by character level or by class level?  For example, is it possible to create a character who never once gains a single ability score improvement by reaching level 3 in a class and then switching to a different class repeatedly?  I had originally thought the 5 that every class gets would occur by character level, so for example a sorcerer1/bard3 would earn an ability score improvement for reaching character level 4. But there are others who have expressed the opinion that this is wrong. Proof using Cauchy Integral Theorem Show that $2^n > n^2$ whenever n>4. Let $S(n)$ be the proposition "$2^n &gt; n^2$"  Basis step: $S(5)$ is true, since $2^5 = 32$, $ 32 &gt; 25 = 5^ 2$  Inductive step:  Induction hypothesis:   Assume $S(K)$ is true, $2^K &gt; K^2$.  Then  $2^{K+1} = 2.2^K &gt; K^2 + K^2$   I don't know how to proceed after this. How to complete this proof? What is a single word for a person who, as a habit, exaggerates a lot when relating information?   So for example, they relate something that happened but exaggerate so much that they are including clear falsehood and they are well known for doing that. Metric is continuous function Let $X$ be a metric space , $d$ is the metric , show that $d$ is a continuous function from $X\times X$ to $R$.  I think the definition is all we need , but I just don't know where to start , can anyone help me. Question about preposition -of-