August, and still no LTS upgrade?
Should I be offered the option to upgrade to 18.04.1?
I have a 1TB FAILING hard drive, a brand new 1 TB hard drive, a bootable ubuntu usb, and a working computer.  All I need is a step by step process of how to safely clone as much data as possible from one to the other. NOTE: THE DRIVE IS FAILING.  I know I need to enable multiverse and then install and use ddrescue to complete the task. But everywhere I look online, I can't get a straight path to the task. I know that this can be all done within the terminal and that's what I seek.  How can I do this? I have a mathematical problem with the following formula. The goal is to transform this equation to have a seperated real and imaginary part. I have already done this with several other equasions, but for this particualar one I don't know where to start.  I dont expect you to do the complete work of transforming for me, it would already be very nice if you could give me a hind on how you would start.  Thank you in advance!  C||RLC      This is my current progress:    My question is:  How can I get rid of the imaginary part jωC2*R?  When the denominator is completely real I can just split up the formula and have an imaginary and a real part. Evaluation of $\sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}^2u^k$ I am trying to evaluate the finite sum \begin{equation} f(u)=\sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}^2u^k,\quad 0&lt;u\le1 \end{equation}  In an first attempt, I think of the generating function \begin{equation} (1+x)^n(u+x)^n = \sum_{k\ge0}{n\choose k}x^k\sum_{k\ge0}{n\choose k}u^kx^{n-k}=\cdots+x^n\sum_{k\ge0}{n\choose k}^2u^k+\cdots \end{equation}  which means that $f(u)$ is the coefficients of the term $x^n$.  Expanding $(1+x)^n(u+x)^n$ into $[1+(1+u)x+x^2]^n$, and using the multinomial expansion, I get an expression for the coefficient of $x^n$. However, such an expression is more complicated than $f(u)$. It seems I am making the problem even more difficult.  Can someone help me find the value of $f(u)$.  Thank you. The only things I've found so far are a cart method (which ceased working in 1.6), a dispenser method (utilizing the decay on dropped items, but this requires occasional feeding), and a binary counter (which won't work for a single input but rather a fluctuating one).  I want to have a circuit that when I apply an input signal, the output signal doesn't change for 2 to 5 minutes.  When the input turns off, I again want a 2 to 5 minute delay.  I could accomplish this with (roughly) 240 to 600 redstone repeaters, but this is far in excess of being useful.  The only method I can think of, but would require a XOR gate (on the button-input and final output) to start and stop a clock attached to a binary counter.  While I can make room for a device of this size, I was hoping for something simpler. In Java, you can qualify local variables and method parameters with the final keyword.  public static void foo(final int x) {   final String qwerty = "bar";  }   Doing so results in not being able to reassign x and qwerty in the body of the method.  This practice nudges your code in the direction of immutability which is generally considered a plus. But, it also tends to clutter up code with "final" showing up everywhere. What is your opinion of the final keyword for local variables and method parameters in Java? Why isn't smoke flowing with the shape of the domain? I created this Smoke domain.    Then When I added smoke, it didn't stay within the domain, it went through the hole. Read echo'ed output from another PHP file Virtualbox Kernel driver not installed Installing nvidia drivers on 18.04 Why is it so hard to do this in Java? If you want to have any kind of module system you need to be able to load JAR files dynamically. I'm told there's a way of doing it by writing your own ClassLoader, but that's a lot of work for something that should (in my mind at least) be as easy as calling a method with a JAR file as its argument.  Any suggestions for simple code that does this? How to prove this statement: $\binom{r}{r}+\binom{r+1}{r}+\cdots+\binom{n}{r}=\binom{n+1}{r+1}$ Let $n$ and $r$ be positive integers with $n \ge r$. Prove that   Still a beginner here. Need to learn formatting.  I am guessing by induction? Not sure what or how to go forward with this.  Need help with the proof. How can I recover photo files from a memory card with a corrupt filesystem? Installing Ubuntu on one of two hard drives Android OS without Google Services? I have a Sony Xperia Z with version 4.1.2 running.  My question is about removing all of the Google baggage from the phone.  I have no Google account tied to my phone and would really like to get rid of all traces of Google from my phone for a few reasons:   Battery performance: Google services ranks in the top 3 of what uses up my battery Privacy: I try to minimize what Google siphons from my phone with the exception of Google maps Less Dependency: I don't want to be dependent on one company for all my needs.   So are there any Android versions out there that are minimalistic and do not invade your privacy? How to understand a volatility based ETF like VXX The ETF VXX is based on the volatility index VIX. If volatility goes up, VIX goes up and VXX goes up. Similar thing for the downside. Now when I buy an ETF like SPY, I can conceptually understand that I am buying a small portion of each of the underlying companies. So if an underlying company stock makes a move, the ETF SPY makes a move in  the same direction.  But when I buy VXX, what exactly is the underlying? It is VIX. I am unable to grasp the concept of 'volatility' as the underlying. I can visualise only stocks and commodities as the underlying because in my understanding, the unerlying needs to be something physical (let us say stocks are physical commodities for this example).  Can someone explain the concept of 'volatility' as the underlying?  Is the word 'underlying' even appropriate in this case or is the word 'underlying' only to be used for derivative products? How are parameters evaluated for a Plot in Manipulate I am wondering if my proof is correct? Thank you for whoever willing to take a look at it for me.     Proof $\liminf E_k \subset \limsup E_k $   If $\{E_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ is a sequence of sets, we define \begin{align*} \limsup E_k &amp; = \bigcap_{j=1}^\infty\left(\bigcup_{k=j}^\infty E_k\right)\\ &amp;= \bigcap_{j=1}^\infty(E_j \cup E_{j+1} \cup \cdots)\\ &amp;= (E_1 \cup E_2 \cup \cdots) \cap (E_2 \cup E_3 \cup \cdots) \cap \cdots. \end{align*}  Therefore, $\limsup E_k$ consists of those points in $\mathbb{R}^n$ which belong to infinitely many $E_k$. \begin{align*} \liminf E_k &amp; = \bigcup_{j=1}^\infty\left(\bigcap_{k=j}^\infty E_k\right)\\ &amp;= \bigcup_{j=1}^\infty(E_j \cap E_{j+1} \cap \cdots)\\ &amp;= (E_1 \cap E_2 \cap \cdots) \cup (E_2 \cap E_3 \cap \cdots) \cup \cdots. \end{align*} Therefore, $\liminf E_k$ consists of those points in $\mathbb{R}^n$ which belong to all $E_k$ for $k \geq k_0$.  Now consider $x \in \liminf E_k$, then $x \in E_1 \cap E_2 \cap \cdots$, or $x \in E_2 \cap E_3 \cap \cdots$ and so on, that is to say, $x \in E_{k_0} \cup E_{k_0+1} \cup \dots$ for some $k_0$. More specifically, $x \in E_k \forall k \geq k_0$. Therefore, $x \in (E_1 \cup E_2 \cup \cdots) \cap (E_2 \cup E_3 \cup \cdots) \cap \cdots$, so we showed $x \in \limsup E_k$. Unable to disable assignment rules I have a condition where I need to disable standard Lead Assignment Rules if certain criteria are met.   if(emailWithAccIdMap.containsKey(ledRec.Email) &amp;&amp; emailWithAccIdMap.get(ledRec.Email) != null &amp;&amp; !openOppMap.isEmpty() &amp;&amp; openOppMap.get(emailWithAccIdMap.get(ledRec.Email)) != null &amp;&amp; openOppMap.get(emailWithAccIdMap.get(ledRec.Email)).Owner.isActive ==true){                     ledRec.Status = 'Duplicate';                     System.debug('Changing the Status');                     //then assign the original lead owner to new lead owner                     ledRec.OwnerId = openOppMap.get(emailWithAccIdMap.get(ledRec.Email)).OwnerId;                     ledRec.Account_Name__c = openOppMap.get(emailWithAccIdMap.get(ledRec.Email)).AccountId;                     ledRec.Field_for_Lead_Workflow__c = true;                     Database.DMLOptions dmo = new Database.DMLOptions();                     dmo.assignmentRuleHeader.useDefaultRule = false;                     ledRec.setOptions(dmo);                     //since owner is assigned, it shouledRec not pass through round robin                     ledRec.checkAssignment__c = false;  }   This is my code snippet which is running on before insert. The control is entering the IF condition as the debug statement is getting printed. Yet, the owner assigned through this snippet is being overridden by the assignment rules.  I also tried executing this in after insert trigger context but it did not work. Can somebody tell me what I'm doing wrong? How would you evaluate $\liminf\limits_{n\to\infty} \ n \,|\mathopen{}\sin n|$ How would you evaluate the limit inferior of the sequence $n\,|\mathopen{}\sin n|$? That is, $$\liminf\limits_{n\to\infty} \ n \,|\mathopen{}\sin n|$$    Edit. Let $\mu$ be the irrationality measure of $\pi$. Since $\mu$ is not known, I will split the question:   Assuming $\mu &gt; 2$, what is $\liminf\limits_{n\to\infty} \ n\,|\mathopen{}\sin n|$? Assuming $\mu = 2$, what is $\liminf\limits_{n\to\infty} \ n\,|\mathopen{}\sin n|$?     I kind of like its graph... Minimum value of $\left(a+\frac{1}{b}\right)^2+\left(b+\frac{1}{c}\right)^2+\left(c+\frac{1}{a}\right)^2$ Given $a,b,c \in \mathbb{R^+}$ such that $a+b+c=12$   Find Minimum value of $$S=\left(a+\frac{1}{b}\right)^2+\left(b+\frac{1}{c}\right)^2+\left(c+\frac{1}{a}\right)^2$$  My Try: By Cauchy Schwarz Inequality we have  $$\left(a+\frac{1}{b}\right)+\left(b+\frac{1}{c}\right)+\left(c+\frac{1}{a}\right)\le \sqrt{3}\sqrt{S}$$  $\implies$  $$\sqrt{3S} \ge 12+\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c}$$  Now by $AM \ge HM $ inequality we have  $$\frac{a+b+c}{3} \ge \frac{3}{\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c}}$$ $\implies$  $$\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c} \ge \frac{3}{4}$$  hence  $$\sqrt{3S} \ge 12+\frac{3}{4}=\frac{51}{4}$$  hence  $$3S \ge \frac{2601}{16}$$  so $$S \ge \frac{867}{16}$$  is this approach correct and any better approach please share.