How do I skip the Grub menu on a dual-boot system?
How to remove or hide the GRUB boot menu?
MacOS High Sierra: An error occurred while verifying firmware Average time alloted for manuscript review across disciplines I am asking this question because I've always had the impression that manuscripts submitted to a journal in my field (theoretical linguistics) take an insanely long time to get published, and sometimes I get the impression that this is because, most of the time, nobody other than the author cares about getting things done within a reasonable amount of time. Some examples from personal experience follow.   For the last paper I submitted before getting my PhD, I had to wait nine months from the submission date to get reviews back from the referees. Last week I got a review request from a journal I had never reviewed for previously. The review deadline is March 15 (almost four months). In early October, I submitted a manuscript to a journal that I know asks reviewers to return reviews within 6 weeks. I checked the status of the manuscript online and it still says "with editor". Earlier this year, I was about to start writing a review when my wife went into labor. By the time we came back from the hospital, I had forgotten about the review, so I missed the deadline. The editor didn't contact me to ask about the review until two months after the deadline. Late in 2013, I was asked to write a survey chapter for a handbook. The expected publication date of the handbook is summer 2016.   All of this is not me being unlucky with editors and referees. In private conversations through the years, many colleagues have confirmed that it is virtually unheard of to get reviews back within 3 months of submission; 5 or 6 months seems to be a good average, but in some cases it can take longer (see my first point above). In general, everybody seems to have accepted that the submission-to-printed-journal process is going to take a bare minimum of one year, and that's assuming that the manuscript is accepted without revisions. If revisions are required, two years is not out of the question. Also, it's not like our papers are ridiculously long. I've reviewed about 100 papers so far, and the longest one was about 50 single-space pages; 30-35 single-spaced pages is closer to average.  I remember that, when I was a postdoc, my astrophysics housemate mentioned that in his field the entire submission-to-printed-journal process took only three or four months. I really can't see a good reason why theoretical linguistics shouldn't operate on similar timeframes, other than the fact that everybody seems to have grown used to things taking way longer than they really need to. What are the wait times in other fields? How do you manage to get things done quickly? Where can I find sample or real Selenium projects. All the material I can find on github and on internet are basic, and never intermediate or advanced.  How does a real Selenium project look in real life? How can I find sample code? Lets assume my classes are loaded from a compressed .war file or loaded elsewhere,  how can I discover all the resources in a given package?  Enumerating files will not really work, since this is a war file.  Most likely this will involve using the current classloader?  Is there a library out there that does something like that? Googling revealed only some hacks with listing files. Making ffmpeg process first audio stream differently than all others I'm trying to write a command such that ffmpeg executes a given instruction for the first audio stream in a file and a different instruction for any and all others.  In the test case below, for example, I want the first stream copied to the output file and all others converted to mono.  If I write it this way  ffmpeg -i INPUT -map 0 -c copy -map 0:a:0 -c:a:0 copy -map -0:a:0? -c:a libfdk_aac -ac 1 OUTPUT   the first audio stream is ignored when the mapping is overridden later in the command line.  But if I move the instruction for that stream to after the others'  ffmpeg -i INPUT -map 0 -c copy -map -0:a:0? -c:a libfdk_aac -ac 1 -map 0:a:0 -c:a:0 copy OUTPUT   it's no longer ignored, but becomes the last audio stream in the file.  I know I'm close here; I just can't see what I'm doing wrong. How can I use $variable in a shell brace expansion of a sequence? I want to use $var in a shell brace expansion with a range, in bash. Simply putting {$var1..$var2} doesn't work, so I went "lateral"...   The following works, but it's a bit kludgey.    # remove the split files echo rm foo.{$ext0..$extN} rm-segments &gt; rm-segments source rm-segments   Is there a more "normal" way? I try to create a 2D game for Android. It looks like Cut the rope (it isn't a clone but it have same level representation) if it has a value. My problem that I can't understand that optimal sprite sizes I should use. I.e. what target screen resolution should I use to sprites didn't have anomalies on HD-devices (like Samsung Galaxy S7 and etc., phones and tablets)?    To make my question is clearer I ask about this 1 unit = X pixels for xxhdpi-screens. What is X?    P.S. Sorry if it's a duplicate I will be grateful for link on this post cuz I couldn't find it. Why can't we use entanglement to defy Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? In principle, it is possible to entangle any property of two particles, including speed and momentum. Surely then, this could be used to defy the Uncertainty Principle, which states that the momentum and position of a particle cannot be together measured with accuracy, but the more accurate one gets, the less accurate the other becomes:  $$\Delta x\Delta p=\dfrac{\hbar}{2}.$$  If one was to set up an experiment where two particles are entangled, one could then measure the position of one particle with great accurary at the same time as measuring the momentum of the other particle with great accuracy, which would mean that, as the two particles are entangled, one would then know the momentum of the particle they measured the position of.  Therefore, the Uncertainty Principle would have been defied, as both momentum and position have been measured with a high accuracy.  However, this can't be true, as someone would have thought of this before.  So why wouldn't this work? Every nonzero element in a finite ring is either a unit or a zero divisor Proof Verification : Prove -(-a)=a using only ordered field axioms I need to prove for all real numbers $a$, $-(-a) = a$ using only the following axioms:     Thanks to many members of the Mathematics Stackexchange Community, I have the following proof worked out:  Theorem: The Additive Inverse Identity is Unique  $ ( \forall a,b,c \in \mathbb{R} )(a+b=0) \land (a+c=0) \\ ( \forall a,b,c \in \mathbb{R} )(a+b=a+c) \\ ( \forall a,b,c \in \mathbb{R} )(b=c) \\ \text{QED} \\ $  Theorem $\textbf{a} \cdot \textbf{0 = 0}$  $ \begin{align} a \cdot 0 &amp;= a \cdot 0 \\ a \cdot (0 + 0) &amp;= a \cdot 0 \\ a \cdot 0 + a \cdot 0 &amp;= a \cdot 0 \\ a \cdot 0 + a \cdot 0 + (-a) \cdot 0 &amp;= a \cdot 0 + (-a) \cdot 0 \\ a \cdot 0 &amp;= 0 \\ &amp;\text{QED} \\ \end{align} $  Theorem: $-\textbf{1} \cdot \textbf{(a) = (}-\textbf{a)}$  $ \begin{align} a \cdot 0 &amp;= 0 \\ a \cdot \left[ 1 + (-1) \right] &amp;= a + (-a) \\ 1 \cdot a + (-1) \cdot a &amp;= a + (-a) \\ -1 \cdot (a) &amp;= (-a) \\ &amp;\text{QED} \\ \end{align} $  Theorem: $-\textbf{(}-\textbf{a) = a}$  $ \begin{align} 0 &amp;= 0 \\ -a \cdot 0 &amp;= 0 \\ -a \cdot \left[ 1 + (-1) \right] &amp;= 0 \\ -a \cdot 1 + -a \cdot (-1) &amp;= 0 \\ -a + \left[ -(-a) \right] &amp;= 0 \\ -(-a) &amp;= a \\ \text{QED} \\ \end{align} $  Does everything look alright? Have I missed anything?  Also--why is it necessary to show that the additive inverse is unique?  Many thanks in advance. Proof that the Euler characteristic is additive I'm reading through a set of notes which assumes that the Euler characteristic is additive, but doesn't give a proof, so I would like to understand why this is.  Let $A_n$ be a finitely generated Abelian group, non-zero for $0&lt;n&lt;k$. Consider the long exact sequence  $ \cdots \rightarrow A_n \rightarrow B_n \rightarrow C_n \rightarrow A_{n-1} \rightarrow B_{n-1} \rightarrow C_{n-1} \rightarrow \cdots $  where $B_n$, $C_n$ defined similarly to $A_n$.   I know that the Euler characteristic of $A$ is given by $\chi(A) = \sum_0^k (-1)^n \text{rank}(A_n)$, with similar definitions for $B$ and $C$. I want to prove that $\chi(B) = \chi(A) + \chi(C)$.  The notes say that for an exact sequence  $0 \rightarrow X \rightarrow Y \rightarrow Z \rightarrow 0$  of finitely generated Abelian groups $X,Y,Z$, we have the result rank($Y$) $=$ rank($X$) +  rank($Z$), and that the additivity of the Euler characteristic follows from this fact, but I can't see how. Drupal site moved from development to live - IE won't load stylesheets anymore Before you ask ... I have looked everywhere for a solution, even drupal.org but nothing so far seems to work.  I developed a Drupal site (custom child theme for Zen) and on the development server everything looks fine in all browsers.  I did a test migration to another server before the launch. This move went well and everything looks fine in all browsers.  Then I moved the site to its live server where everything looks fine in all browsers except Internet Explorer which is not loading the stylesheets.  I know Drupal is known for generating many stylesheets and Internet Explorer will not load them if there are more than 31 (I believe) of them, but I did set the "Aggregate and compress CSS files" feature and clear the cache. This did not seem to help.  Could the answer be in one of the two following things?   The development site and backup site are both with one hosting provider. The live site is with a different hosting provider. The development site and backup site are in subfolders of two different portfolio sites ... ie www.portfoliosite.com/Newsite. The live site is a subdomain of the parent site ... ie www.newsite.parentsite.com.   I have run out of ideas so if anyone has a possible solution or direction to look, please let me know. Thanks Randomly place and scale objects? In my grammar book (English Grammar, HarperCollins Publishers), I read that none is occasionally treated as plural, but it is usually regarded as singular. Can you give me an example of sentence where none is used as plural pronoun? Are the review queues planned for the iOS app? If $x,y$ are positive reals such that $x+y = 2$ show that $x^3y^3(x^3+y^3) \leq 2$.   I thought about working backwards on this one. We can try to prove that $x^3y^3(x^3+y^3) \leq 2$ is true by first realizing that $x^3+y^3 = (x+y)(x^2-xy+y^2)$ and substituting in for $x+y = 2$. We then get $x^3y^3(x^2-xy+y^2) \leq 1$. How do I prove this is true? Does $\{f_ng_n\}\to fg$ uniformly? Combinatorics That Looks Similar to Vandermonde's Identity if $x_i$ are IID  continuous random variables, with $E[x_i]=μ$, is the following correct?   $E\left[\prod_{i=1}^n(1+⍺\space x_i)^i\right] = \prod_{i=1}^nE\left[(1+⍺\space x_i)^i\right] =  \prod_{i=1}^n(1+⍺\space E\left[x_i\right])^i = (1+⍺\space μ)^n$  thanks! How to hide terminal output when executing a command?