vertex/object moving sensitivity increases suddenly
Cursor is set to move by increments. how to reset to normal?
Do we need to unbind event listeners in directives when angular starts to destroy? Kworker, what is it and why is it hogging so much CPU? Every time since a few days ago after I caught Mespirit, when I go to the portal in the Nameless Cavern and I press A to interact. All that happens is a short dialog sequence and nothing else. I know the requirements are along the lines of having 3 max happiness Pokemon with you in your party which I do. I have also downloaded the recent update/patch from the eShop if that helps at all. How can I make Uxie and Azelf appear in the cavern? I am developing an offline installer for all versions of Ubuntu, and I need Ubuntu's default installed packages list. Is there a way to get this information from any server (web server)? Any script to fetch any Ubuntu version's default installed packages list.  I will give the Ubuntu version, and the script will fetch the packages list.  Note: I need at least a server address. I can write a script for this. What formats supporting animation are suitable for the web? Proof that $\frac {1} {2\pi i} \oint \frac {{\rm d}z} {P(z)} $ over a closed curve is zero. Prove that $$\frac {1} {2\pi i} \oint \frac {{\rm d}z} {P(z)} $$ over a closed  smooth simple curve that contains all of the roots of the polynomial $P(z)$ is either zero if $n \geq 2$ or equals $\frac{1} {a_0} $ if it's degree is $1$.   Proof: $n\geq 2$ $$\frac {1} {P(z)=(z-z_0)(z-z_1)\dots(z-z_n)}$$ So after partial decomposition of the fraction I'll have something like $$\frac {A} {z-z_0} +\frac{B} {z-z_1}+\cdots$$ where $A,B \in \mathbb{C}$ (Is this fact true that $A,B$ wont be polynomials and just coefficients I can see it why in an intuitive way but cannot write a full proof of it for the decomposition trying to get a linear system or something) then use Cauchy's theorem and integrate all of these on  different circles with their center at each root  and argue that  the integral is the same as the sum of those circle integrals. Now since $\frac {1}{z-z_n}$ will be analytic inside the circle when I'm integrating on circles that do not contain $z_n$  some  of those integrals  will be zero. and now since my curves are of the form $\gamma(t)=z_n+e^{it}$ , $t \in [0,2\pi]$ the rest of the integrals  will look like $$\int_0^{2\pi}  \frac{Aie^{ti}} {e^{it}}\,{\rm d}t $$  and all of them will be $A_i$.   Is my proof correct? Only part I cannot show is that I won't have any problem with decomposing the fraction. And I'm also using the assumption that after the decomposition I'll have as numerators simple complex numbers not not functions of any kind. How to space columns evenly in a table with multicolumns? Array with labeling columns I am running Ubuntu 14.04 on think-pad T450.  When using an external monitor with higher resolution than the in-built laptop screen, the text of dialog boxes are getting messed up.  Looks like I need to replace the Graphic card driver. Anyone found a solution to this?  Updated to add requested information:  lspci -nnk | grep '\[03' -A2   gives the following:  00:02.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Intel Corporation Broadwell-U Integrated Graphics [8086:1616] (rev 09)     Subsystem: Lenovo Device [17aa:5034] Kernel driver in use: i915   Below is a screenshot, see how the letters are messed up on the screen. How do you force constructor signatures and static methods? Is there a way of forcing a (child) class to have constructors with particular signatures or particular static methods in C# or Java?  You can't obviously use interfaces for this, and I know that it will have a limited usage. One instance in which I do find it useful is when you want to enforce some design guideline, for example:  Exceptions They should all have the four canonical constructors, but there is no way to enforce it. You have to rely on a tool like FxCop (C# case) to catch these.  Operators There is no contract that specifies that two classes can be summed (with operator+ in C#)  Is there any design pattern to work around this limitation? What construct could be added to the language to overcome this limitation in future versions of C# or Java? I'm writing up some notes that will be displayed on an overhead projector. The standard time-derivative \dot{x} produces a dot that is hard to see. Does anyone know of a package or have a macro that produces a (nice looking) larger dot? Similarly with \ddot{x}.  At the moment, I've been supplied with some ugly code that produces an ugly output:  \def\dt#1{{\buildrel  {\hbox{\LARGE . }} \over {#1}}}    % dot-over  \def\ddt#1{{\buildrel {\hbox{\LARGE ..}} \over {#1}}}    % double dot How to force Logger.debug output in Play! framework specs2 tests? I have brand new machine.  I want to install Ubuntu and one more Linux distributions on same machine. When the machine is up I want to have the option to choose which Linux to load.   Is it possible?  How to do it? What's going on with "compact implies sequentially compact"? I've seen both counterexamples and proofs to &quot;compact implies sequentially compact&quot;, and I'm not sure what's going on. Apparently there are compact spaces which are not sequentially compact; quick googling and wikipedia checks will turn up examples floating around; they tend to be variants of $[0,1]^{[0,1]}$ with the product topology.  Here's a demonstration(?):  $[0,1]^{[0,1]}$ is compact by Tychonoff's theorem.  So, we demonstrate failure of sequential compactness. Choose a unique binary representation for each $x\in [0,1]$. For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $f_n : [0,1]\to[0,1]$ (an element of $[0,1]^{[0,1]}$) be the function which maps each $x$ to its $n$-th place digit in its binary expansion. Let $f_{n_k}$ be a subsequence of this sequence. Let $x'\in [0,1]$ be such that the $n_{2m}$-th digit is $0$ and the $n_{2m+1}$-th digit is $1$, for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $f_{n_k} (x')$ does not converge (it alternates between $0$ and $1$), and hence $f_{n_k}$ cannot converge. Thus we have found a sequence in $[0,1]^{[0,1]}$ without any convergent subsequence and so it is not sequentially compact.  (Aside: this is apparently based off of an example in Steen's Counterexamples in Topology, according to  ) Nevertheless, there's also some proofs(?) floating around that compactness of a space implies sequential compactness, along these lines (this proof(?) is of the contrapositive):  Suppose $X$ is not sequentially compact. By definition, this means there is some sequence $(x_n)$ over $X$ with no convergent subsequence. If any $x\in X$ had for each of its neighborhood $U$ infinitely many $n$ for which $x_n \in U$, then we could define a convergent subsequence of $(x_n)$, contradicting our assumption.  (Presumably this is done by choosing for each neighborhood a sufficiently-large-indexed term in that neighborhood.) Thus, for each $x \in X$ we can select an open set $U_x$ such that $x\in U_x$ but with $x_n \in U_x$ for only finitely many $n$. The collection $\mathcal{U}=\{U_x : x\in X\}$ is clearly an open cover of $X$. If $\mathcal{U}$ had a finite subcover $\{U_1, \dots, U_k\}$ then the union $U_1 \cup \cdots \cup U_k$ would contain all of $X$ but only contain $x_n$ for finitely many $n$, which is impossible. Thus $X$ is not compact, since we have found an open cover without a finite subcover.  (Aside: this proof is essentially the same as the proof appearing in Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis for Thm 2.37 that infinite subsets of compact spaces have limit points.) So, what's going on here?  It can't be that what both the counterexample and the proof are telling us is correct.  Is there some subtle (or more embarassingly for me -- glaring) flaw in the proof? Ubuntu 14.04.5/16.04 and newer on AMD graphics Does the stock market create any sort of value? Sorry if the below seems like a conspiracy theory. It probably is, but I probably don't understand something. (This has bugged me to no end as long as I can remember.)  Okay, so here is what I understand about the stock market?   The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public.   In a Ponzi scheme, there is usually some small source of income to hide the fact that it's a Ponzi scheme. Dividends are pretty insignificant. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks.  When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.   For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say "I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone." The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.)  The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market.   In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do.    Based on the above, it seems like the Stock Market has little to do with investing businesses to create growth, and primarily grows in a similar way to a Ponzi Scheme. (Some differences include that it is Stochastic (so when it collapses, it can be blamed on luck or the economy) and it has no top operator (similar to a Pyramid Scheme)).  Am I missing something? Does the stock market create value for investors? I just read this very insightful post , where the author stated that the variance of $\hat\beta$ is:  $$\text{var}(\hat\beta) = \sigma^2(\textbf{X}^\prime \textbf{X})^{-1}.$$  I couldn't figure out why it is like this. Can anyone elaborate a bit? If the Universe is expanding, how is that galaxies run into each other? As the title says. If everything is moving outward, thrown by the Big Bang, how could two Galaxies end up with velocity vectors that run them into each other? Is this mold? Black? White? BibTeX loses capitals when creating .bbl file Titles of articles I'm about to cite contain upper case letters and when using BibTeX it converts them to lower case ones. This happens only in the title and only the first letter conserves its case. For example, when I cite an article about HF, the reader won't know if it is about Hafnium (Hf) or fluorine acid (HF).  I know that I can fix it manually in the .bbl file but I would like to avoid it, or fix it automatically.