Install Ubuntu touch on Android device Motorola G2 XT1068
What hardware does Ubuntu Touch support?
How to completely remove virtual packages? 3-regular graphs with no bridges Problem. Use Tutte's 1-factor theorem to prove that every 3-regular graph with no bridges has a 1-factor.  I honestly have no idea how to approach this problem. I have drawn a couple of graphs to gain some insight to no avail. Any hints or tips will be greatly appreciated. For example:   For an MVC architecture, should I prefer Ruby on Rails or PHP [closed] Gmail: What is a jQuery selector for incoming mail senders only? How to work with highly compressed and nested CSS in general? [closed]   Better to convert to   [closed] For an MVC architecture, should I prefer Ruby on Rails or PHP [closed] Gmail: What is a jQuery selector for incoming mail senders only? How to work with highly compressed and nested CSS in general?   I should first read the title and sometimes open the question to understand if the question is closed.  I think the [closed] mark  should be at the beginning of the title, not in the end, where I won't ever be if the title is long.  Also coloring will be a good improvement (via @Shadow Wizard). I want to add  on my blog hosted on Blogger. The only solution I found is , but it requires a hosting server. Any other option? Convergence of non increasing and non decreasing sequences to the same limit Prove that the projection $p_i$ from the product space $X_I S_i \tau$ into $S_i \tau_i$ is open for each $i \in I$ Full question: A function $f$ from a space $X, \tau$ to a space $Y, \tau'$ is said to be open if $f(V)$ is open in $Y$ whenever $V$ is an open subset of $X$. Prove that the projection $p_i$ from the product space $X_I S_i \tau$ into $S_i \tau_i$ is open for each $i \in I$.  Attempt: Let $S = \Pi_{i \in I} S_i$ be the product space. Then, let $p_i: S, \tau \to S_i, \tau_i$ be the projection $p_i(s) = s_i$ for each $s \in S$. Then, $p_i$ is continuous for all $i \in I$.  Then, if $V_i$ is open in $S_i$, then $p_i^{-1}(V_i) = S$ is one of the open sets in the basis, namely $\{\Pi_I V_i : V_i \text{ open in } S_i \text{ and } V_i = S_i \text{ for all but at most finitely many i}\}$, and we see clearly that $V_i$ fits the criteria for all $i \in I$ because we defined $V_i$ as being open in $S_i$ and $I$ is a finitely countable set, hence there will be at most finitely many $i$ for which $V_i = S_i$.  Thus, the projection $p_i$ is open for each $i \in I$.  I'm not sure if I tackled this correctly and wanted to make sure I was on the right track or got it right. Parentheses around more than one paragraph Does English allow one to put parentheses around more than one paragraph? Example:     Paragraph 1.      (Paragraph 2.      Paragraph 3.)      Paragraph 4.   (Of course, this is just a simple example. In reality, it looks more clean since the paragraphs are more than one line long, and are not separated by an empty line.) I was playing modern with the owner of a shop.  He played a  which he used to bring in 7 lands: 5 basic mountains and 2  cards.  He then claimed that each  triggered 5 times (killing me).  I am doubting this now.    Here is my reason: The two  cards entered at the same time as the other 5 basic lands.  That means when they were on the battlefield and their ability was in effect, the other 5 basic lands were already there too.  That seems too late to trigger a "Enters the Battlefield" effect.  So here is my question.  Am I right or wrong?  If I am wrong, please show me how the enter the battlefield effect can trigger for something that enters the battlefield at the same time as itself.  If I am right, please show me the rules that prove it.  I now have two shop owners that are convinced that this is a legal play.  If it is not legal, I am going to need clear rules citations to convince them.    Side note:  If I am wrong and it is a legal play, then I have a follow up scenario.  Say I have 2  cards and 5 other human cards in my graveyard.  If I play a spell that lets me return all of them to the battlefield at the same time (say ), would the  cards get 6 +1/+1 counters on them?    To me, if the trick that was played on me with  is legal then my  cards should also get the +1/+1 counters. Why do we tag questions? My question—my meta-question as the case may be—concerns the purpose of these words referred to as "tags". Let me be clear: I use tags. The site supports them, so why shouldn't I? My understanding of their reason for existing is tragically incomplete.   Are they used for searching? Are they useful in any other way, or do they merely act as decoration?     For more information, see "" and "" in the . Most common C# bitwise operations on enums For the life of me, I can't remember how to set, delete, toggle or test a bit in a bitfield. Either I'm unsure or I mix them up because I rarely need these. So a "bit-cheat-sheet" would be nice to have.  For example:   flags = flags | FlagsEnum.Bit4;  // Set bit 4.   or  if ((flags &amp; FlagsEnum.Bit4)) == FlagsEnum.Bit4) // Is there a less verbose way?   Can you give examples of all the other common operations, preferably in C# syntax using a [Flags] enum? Cast Double to Integer in Java The adverb "quite" has the following meanings :     1: wholly, completely ("not quite   finished")      2: to an extreme : positively "quite   sure" —often used as an intensifier   with a "quite a swell guy" "quite a   beauty"      3: to a considerable extent : rather   ("quite near")   My understanding is that #1 and #2 conflict with #3. For example, when you say "She's quite right", do you mean "She's completely right" or "To a considerable extent, she's right"? Notice that in the latter case you're not saying that she is completely right.  Another example is "I'm quite sure". Does it necessarily mean "I'm completely sure"?   Does the word really have conflicting meanings that can possibly cause ambiguity? Or am I missing something? Why was the Holdo manoeuvre not used earlier? This question is related to "The Last Jedi":  The maneuvre that vice admiral Holdo (with the purple hair) uses towards the end of the film seems remarkably effective.   It seems that it would have worked pretty well much earlier. Especially as two other ships were just allowed to run out of fuel and be destroyed.  It seems doing it earlier with different assets would have incurred less losses. Yet nobody seemed to consider it. Any in universe reason why? There have been a few questions regarding installing this package in the past, but they now seem to be out of date. I'm using MiKTeX 2.9 and TexMaker. When I try \usepackage{mathtools} in TexMaker it will try to install the package for me but will fail. I took the advice given in this thread:   As suggested I tried installing the mh package using the MiKTeX Package Manager, unfortunately I get the "unknown archive size" error, which I have read means that the package no longer exists. Another thread (lost the link) said you can use the MiKTeX Package Manager to directly install mathtools, however I do not see mathtools listed anywhere in the MiKTeX Package Manager...   So I ask, is the package under a different name? Are there any other ways to install this package? How are embedded quotations used? How would embedded quotations be used when quoting from passages/sources within an essay? What would be the difference between normal quotations and embedded quotations? Simulating Key Press C# Capitalize fields of study? What is the purpose of old-school D&D class level limitations? A problem of Schwarz-Pick theorem in complex analysis Set $f \in H(B(0,1)),f(B(0,1)) \subset B(0,1)$，prove that $$|f(z)-\frac{f(0)(1-|z|^2)}{1-|f(0)|^2||z|^2}| \le \frac{|z|(1-|f(0)|^2)}{1-|z|^2|f(0)|^2}$$  I think this problem is supposed to be proved by Schwarz-Pick theorem, I tried hard but failed to build a function to prove it. I even doubted that this problem is wrong, so I want to whether this problem can be proved or be falsified, and how.  Any help would be appreciated. How can I install a package without root access?