Does Windows Server 2012 R2 OEM require different install media?
Can you help me with my software licensing issue?
Settings -> Applications -> All tells me that "Contacts Storage" uses 2.5MB which must be my contact data.  Since I had to revert to 4.03 after a faulty update to 4.1 my contacts seem inaccessible although the data seems to be there.  Could you please tell me where to find the associated data(base) for Contacts Storage? My phone is rooted. And no, my contact data is not on GMail and I honestly don't know why... Let $a,b,c$ are non-negative numbers, such that $a+b+c = 3$.  Prove that $\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c} \ge ab + bc + ca$    Here's my idea:  $\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c} \ge ab + bc + ca$  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) \ge 2(ab + bc + ca)$  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) - 2(ab + bc + ca) \ge 0$  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) - ((a+b+c)^2 - (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge 0$  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) - (a+b+c)^2 \ge 0$  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge (a+b+c)^2$  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge 3^2 = 9$  And I'm stuck here.  I need to prove that:   $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge (a+b+c)^2$ or  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge 3(a+b+c)$, because $a+b+c = 3$  In the first case using Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality I prove that:  $(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)(1+1+1) \ge (a+b+c)^2$  $3(a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge (a+b+c)^2$  Now I need to prove that:   $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge 3(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)$   $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) \ge 2(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)$   $\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c} \ge a^2 + b^2 + c^2$   I need I don't know how to continue.  In the second case I tried proving:  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) \ge 2(a+b+c)$ and  $a^2 + b^2 + c^2 \ge a+b+c$  Using Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality I proved:  $(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)(1+1+1) \ge (a+b+c)^2$  $(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)(a+b+c) \ge (a+b+c)^2$  $a^2 + b^2 + c^2 \ge a+b+c$  But I can't find a way to prove that $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) \ge 2(a+b+c)$  So please help me with this problem.  P.S   My initial idea, which is proving:  $2(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{c}) + (a^2 + b^2 + c^2) \ge 3^2 = 9$  maybe isn't the right way to prove this inequality. How to do this manually, not installing any tools? Possessive Form of a Proper Noun Ending in a Plural Noun Ending in "s"? I don't think this has yet been covered in .  There was , however, it was not specifically talking about the case where the proper noun ends in a plural noun.  Feel free to vote to close if I am wrong.  What is the correct way to make a proper noun ending in a plural noun ending in an "s" possessive?  This frequently happens with corporations, e.g., "Dunkin' Donuts."  Should one work off of the fact that the entity is singular—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts's—or should one work off of the fact that "Donuts" is plural and ending in an "s"—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts'?  I expect that the answer might depend on dialect because some regions refer to corporations in the singular form ("Dunkin' Donuts is a company") while other regions refer to corporations in the plural form ("Dunkin' Donuts are a company").  I am specifically interested in American English, but would be interested in hearing answers for other dialects too. Laws and theories What is a , a , and what is the relationship among them?  I know this is a very basic question, so any reference to epistemology will be greatly appreciated :) Can open, unsafe nuclear fusion reaction burn the atmosphere? I happened to hear people saying that the nuclear fusion bomb tests could set the atmosphere on fire. I have some serious doubts about that - but I have no facts. Nuclear fusion reaction requires $15*10^{6}$ kelvins to start. If we produce such temperature in "open air" would the atmosphere become a fuel for further fusion? Shouldn't the whole thing just be torn apart by its terrible pressure? "GPT detected. Please create a BIOS-Boot partition" while using boot-repair Since I updated Windows to 8.1 my Grub menu disappeared. I ran Ubuntu using Live USB, I used Boot-Repair but something went wrong. If I click on Reccomended repair I get this error:     GPT detected. Please create a BIOS-Boot partition (>1MB, unformatted filesystem, bios_grub flag). This can be performed via tools such as Gparted. Then try again. Alternatively, you can retry after activating the [Separate /boot/efi partition:] option.   So I tried to set my sda9 (I think that it's the Ubuntu system partition, since it's ext4) with the bios_grub flag and then to run Boot-Repair again. It didn't work.  I don't know what to do. My Grub was working fine (using UEFI) before I updated Windows.  I removed the bios_grub flag. Then I used fsck and it didn't find any error. So I tried again with Boot-Repair but it always gives me the "GPT detected" error. My boot is on UEFI mode, Secure Boot is "off".  When I boot my PC with SecureBoot OFF, I can reach the GRUB menu. But it's empty (the only voice is "System Setup").  I mounted my Ubuntu system disk:  sudo mount /dev/sda9 /mnt   and the other things:  sudo mount --bind /dev /mnt/dev sudo mount --bind /proc /mnt/proc sudo mount --bind /sys /mnt/sys   I logged on the system with chroot:  sudo chroot /mnt   I re-installed grub:  grub-install /dev/sda update-grub2   But it still doesn't work. What determines which frames are inertial frames? I understand that you can (in principle) measure whether "free particles" (no forces) experience accelerations in order to tell whether a frame is inertial. But fundamentally, what determines which frames are inertial (i.e. what principle selects in which frames free particles will not appear to accelerate)? I've been told that the cosmic microwaves determine the ultimate rest frame of the universe, but that doesn't make sense to me, since one can still ask why that frame is an inertial frame.  Also, I understand that there are no real inertial frames in general relativity, but it seems like there certainly exists approximate inertial frames and we can ask why those frames are approximately inertial and not others. For example, in the frame of a person riding a merry go round, free particles appear to greatly accelerate; while in the frame of someone standing next to the merry go round there are no such great accelerations. Why does the guy (or gal) on the merry go round see free particles accelerating while the other guy doesn't.   And if you're gonna tell me that it's "the rest of the stuff in the universe" that determines whether the person on the merry go round sees free particles accelerate, I'll ask how you know that all that stuff is not spinning.  I hope this question sort of makes sense, it's been bothering me for a while and my study of relativity (most of special relativity and just the outline of general relativity) hasn't really clarified it for me much. Adapt V-brakes bicycle to disk brakes I've been thinking in changing my v-brakes to disc brakes. Now that my rear v-brake can't brake anymore I think that it is time change it. I've already seen . My frame is prepared for disc and, as I don't want to change my brake lever, I'll go with mechanical brakes (does  look ok?);  The only problem is the rear wheel hub that has not the six holes for the disk. Is it ok if I just change the rear wheel hub and keep the front one? Why can a 1 element set be a member of another set but not a subset of it? I have came across this in a textbook:     $\{2\}\nsubseteq\{\{2\}\}$ but $\{2\}\in\{\{2\}\}$   I understand that $\{2\}$ is an element (member) of the other set but considering $\{2\}$ is a set itself, why is it not a subset? Under TeX, when I write a line too long, it prints a fat black box at the end of the line.  That is probably a feature, but I dislike it.  How to turn that OFF? Is there a command-line option or something else?   I usually use LaTeX, but I have a complicated file which happens to be plain TeX. Can I use a card with "Add one mana of any color to your mana pool" in any Elder Dragon Highlander (EDH) deck? I recently tried /, and found it to be a ton of fun.  I've started customizing one of the pre-cons I got, but I'm a little confused by some of the deck-building requirements.  According to the deck-building rules:   A card's color identity is its color plus the color of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's color identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects. Cards in a deck may not have any colors in their identity which are not shared with the commander of the deck. (The identity of each card in the deck must be a subset of the General's)    If I'm using  as my general, my deck's identity is Red, Blue and Green.  I couldn't use  in my deck, because it has a black mana symbol in the rules text.  My question is:  can I add a card to my deck that has the phrase "Add one mana of any color to your mana pool" (such as  or )?  Even though those cards could conceivably add black mana to my mana pool, they don't have a black or white (or any for that matter) mana symbol in their rules text, so they would be valid for inclusion in any deck? Evaluate $6^{433} \pmod {21}$ and a proving question Question 1: Denote $a \mod b$ as $a \% b$, where $a$ and $b$ are some integers  Evaluate 12^32475 % 21    The following is what I tried:    12^32475 % 21 = (12^3 % 21)^10825 % 21 = 6^10825 % 21 = ... = 6^433 % 21   But how to continue ?  Question 2:  I don't understand this: n-1= -1 mod n. Where is this from? And does this line become the next line?    Context: my class is discrete math for computer science. So far for related topics, it covers modular inverse, (extended) GCD algorithm, Fermat's Little Theorem and Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT). How can I force a line break in the table of contents? What do you call the process of combining two words to create a new one? $\Bbb Q$-linear is equivalent to additive Quantum computers are known to be able to crack  a broad range of cryptographic algorithms which were previously thought to be solvable only by resources increasing exponentially with the bit size of the key. An example for that is .  But, as far I know, not all problems fall into this category. On , we can read     Researchers have developed a computer algorithm that doesn’t solve problems but instead creates them for the purpose of evaluating quantum computers.   Can we still expect a new cryptographic algorithm which will be hard to crack using even a quantum computer? For clarity: the question refers to specifically to the design of new algorithms. Why {are you / you are} making noise? In an urn there are $n$ red balls and $m$ blue balls. I extract them without replacement. Let $X$=time of first blue. What is $E(X)$?  I found PMF of $X$ and it is, if $k &gt; n+1$  $$P(X=k) =\frac{n(n-1) \dots (n-k+1)m}{(m+n)(m+n-1) \dots (n+m-k+1)}$$  How could I evaluate $E(X)$?  Edit: I'm looking for an explicit form of $E(X)$ The volume of a cone with height $h$ and radius $r$ is $\frac{1}{3} \pi r^2 h$, which is exactly one third the volume of the smallest cylinder that it fits inside.  This can be proved easily by considering a cone as a , but I would like to know if it can be proved or at least visual demonstrated without using calculus.