I have a client who wants to create a real state web but with only 1 page and everything should be done dynamically, preferably using websockets. Technically speaking it's possible, but my question is: Is it possible to do it and still have a good page rank? Is there any example os a similar page?
I'm considering re-designing my personal website to promote my web services in my local area.  My issue is whether to do a one page website with a scroll-to navigation system. What effect does this have on SEO. As i understand it, you set stuff like h1's and meta description on specific page content. How does this work when all of your different content is on one page?
Database schema documentation for the public data dump and SEDE Stack Exchange releases "data dumps" of all its publicly available content roughly every three months , and also makes that information queryable over the Internet at the  (SEDE) (updated weekly, on Sunday). Over time, as new features and other bits of data are introduced to Stack Exchange sites, the "anatomy" of the data dump is likely to change. I accidently ran  sudo chmod 755 -R /   instead of  sudo chmod 755 -R ./   I stopped it after few seconds, but now there is some problems such as  sudo: must be setuid root   How can I revert permissions back? $\sin(n)$ subsequence limits set We were given a challenge by our calculus professor and I've been stuck on it for a while now.   Show that the set of subsequence limits of $A_n=\sin(n)$ is $[-1, 1]$ (another way to phrase this would be: $\forall r\in [-1,1]$ there exists a subsequence of $A_n=\sin(n)$ that converges to $r$).  What would be a good way to start? Prove $[A,B^n] = nB^{n-1}[A,B]$ I am trying to show that $[A,B^n] = nB^{n-1}[A,B]$ where A and B are two Hermitian operators that commute with their commutator. However, I am running into a little problem and would like a hint of how to proceed.  If A and B commute then $[A,B] = ABA^{-1}B^{-1} = e$ where e is the identity element of the group.  $$\therefore AB=BA$$  $$n=1; [A,B^1] = (1)B^0[A,B] = e$$ This statement is certainly true. however moving on to $n = 2$ I find...  $$[A,B^2] = AB^2A^{-1}B^{-2} = ABBA^{-1}B^{-1}B^{-1} = BBAA^{-1}B^{-1}B^{-1}$$  Where in the last step I have used the fact that A and B commute to rearange the terms. However, it is plain to see that this last term simply reduces to the identity as well and for the n = 2 case we have:  $$[A,B^2] = e \ne 2B[A,B] = 2Be = 2B$$  Clearly I have assumed something I shouldn't have. The fact that there is a multiplicative factor of n implies I should be adding things, but I thought if I kept it as general as possible, the answer should just fall out naturally. I don't want an answer please, only guidance. I use a Windows 10 machine remotely at work. Both the local and remote machine are in the same ISP network (not same local network, but same ISP). I've been using it like that for almost a year now and I had never experienced absolutely any issues.  Until recently. I don't know if anything specific triggered this behavior, but I feel that it started happening after I upgraded the remote to W10 1903. I later upgraded the local one as well and I feel that it only made the problem worse (but I don't really have any data).  From time to time, the session will freeze - the image stops updating. However, what I type and mouse clicks are still being sent. No error message is shown whatsoever, the image simply freezes. To make it work again, I have to close and re-open the session. Everything that I had typed and/or clicked while it was frozen is there.  Is there any way I can debug this? How to create a bootable Ubuntu USB flash drive from terminal? Is there any way to create a bootable Ubuntu USB flash drive from the terminal without using any third-party applications like , , ,  etc.  I tried to create a bootable Ubuntu flash drive with dd method,  sudo umount /dev/sdb sudo dd if=/path/to/ubuntu.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=1M   It creates files on the USB disk, but when I try to boot the USB disk it shows an Operating System Not Found error. Hilbert, Gödel, and "God equations" - a 19th century lesson for 21st century physicists? It seems there are a lot of respected physicists appearing on pop-sci programs (discovery channel, science channel, etc.) these days spreading the gospel of   Three examples, quickly: 1) Many programs feature Michio Kaku saying that he is on a quest to find an equation, "perhaps just one inch long," which will "describe the whole universe."  2) Max Tegmark has come out with  in which he expresses the gut feeling that "nothing is off-limits" to science.  The subtitle of this book is My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality.  3) In the series  there is talk about a search for the "God equation."  (A good counter-example would be Feynman, but his self-described "non-axiomatic" or "Babylonian" approach does not seem popular with physicists today.)  Is there any sense among physicists that it might be impossible to articulate the "ultimate nature of reality" in equations and formal logic?  It seems to me that physicists are following in the footsteps of the 19th century mathematicians (led by Hilbert) who were on a similar quest which was put to rest by Gödel's incompleteness theorems in 1931.  Is there any appreciation for how the Incompleteness Theorems might apply to physics?  Has any progress been made on  for the 20th century?  Shouldn't this be addressed before getting all worked up about a "God equation?" resizable serial console window? How to restore file copy / transfer status window? Custom setting Setting type not visible If the laws of random variables weakly converge to a point mass at $c$, then the random variables converge in probability to $c$. This is question 10.3.1 from Rosenthal's First Look at Rigorous Probability.  Suppose $\mathcal{L}(X_n) \Rightarrow \delta_c$ for some $c \in \mathbb{R}$. Prove that $\{X_n\}$ converges to $c$ in probability.  Here $\mathcal{L}(X_n)$ refers to the distribution of $X_n$.  Is the following proof correct?  Is a simpler proof available?  Is there a simple proof using Skorohod's theorem?  I attempted to prove the contrapositive. Suppose $X_n \not \to c$ in probability.  This means that there is an $\varepsilon &gt; 0$ so that for all $N$, there exists an $m &gt; N$ such that  \begin{equation}   P(|X_m - c| \geq \varepsilon) &gt; \eta, \text{ for some $\eta &gt; 0$}. \end{equation}  Consider  \begin{equation}   B := \{x \in \mathbb{R} : |x - c| \leq \varepsilon\} \in \mathcal{B} \text{ the Borel sets on $\mathbb{R}$}. \end{equation}  Then $B^c \in \mathcal{B}$ and denoting the distribution of $X_n$ as $\mu_n$ we have  \begin{equation}   \mu_n(B^c) = P(X_n \in B^c) = P(|X_n - c| \geq \varepsilon) &gt; \eta. \end{equation}  For all $N$, there exists an $m &gt; N$ such that the cumulative distribution function of $X_m$ is not the same as the cumulative distribution function of $\delta_c$; in particular it's mass changes somewhere at least $\varepsilon$ distance from $c$. Finally because $\delta_c(\{x\}) = 0$ for all $x \neq c$ this completes the proof. e.g., I've got files I want to send by sendmail but the receiving mailbox (for posting pictures to my blog) will not accept uuencode files a la   $uuencode file | sendmail user@domain  I'm guessing it'll accept MIME though. So what command can I use instead? Multiple one to many relationships in series I am making a DB for storing reports that have following fields:  Ad_system, Ad_Campaing, Ad_Group, Keyword, Date, Impressions, Clicks, Conversions   Logic is that, Ad_system can have multiple Ad_Campaings, Ad_Campaing can have multiple Ad_Groups and Ad_Groups can have multiple Keywords, and for every Keyword there is a report. Should It be like this? Because it kind of makes sense to me, but it doesn't look correct. Primary key can also be:  ad.system.name for first table  ad.system.name ad.campaing.name for second table  ad.system.name ad.campaing.name ad.group.name for third table  ad.system.name ad.campaing.name ad.group.name keyword for fourth table  They will always be unique, but then Report will always have all DB columns in it, so it's kind of redundant.  Is the approach that I have in the diagram below correct? Or is a better one what I just described? If I am not mistaken both should satisfy 3rd NF. Evaluate: $$\int_{-\pi/4}^{\pi/4}(\cos(t)+\sqrt{1+t^2}\cos(t)^3\sin(t)^3)dt$$  I have tried substituting $t=\tan(\theta)$ and breaking up the $\cos(t)^3$ using $\cos(t)^2=1-\sin(t)^2$, but I can't figure it out.  This question is #21 from the Math subject GRE form GR1268. Is there a way of conditionally triggering a compile-time error in verilog? Adding Facebook Online Account - "application you are trying to use doesn't exist or has been disabled" What is the value of $i^{i^{i^\ldots}}$? What is the value of $i^{i^{i^\ldots}}$?   My effort is the following: If $z, \alpha \in \mathbb{C}$ with $z \neq 0$ then we can write $z^{\alpha}=e^{\alpha \log z} = e^{\alpha [ \log |z|+i \text{ Arg z} + 2 \pi i m]}$ where $ m=0, \pm 1, \pm 2, \ldots$  and Arg z is the principle argument of the complex number $z$. But in above expression we don't have the finite no of exponents, so I am not sure how should I use this formula to the solve above problem. Thanks and Regards! Chance of selecting the last k pages in correct order from a set of n pages I have a set of documents numbered 1 to n. If I arrange the documents randomly, what is the chance of selecting the last k pages in the correct order if I select them at random from the documents?   Because order is important, I use the following formula:  $\displaystyle\frac{n!}{(n-k)!}$  From this I calculate how many ways there are to select k pages from n pages in the correct order. I need to have the last k pages. Which I can do in only one way. So is the chance   1/$\displaystyle\frac{n!}{(n-k)!}$?   It seems unlikely. It seems to me spontaneously that the chance should be smaller. Prove that a finite union of closed sets is also closed Let $X$ be a metric space.  If $F_i \subset X$ is closed for $1 \leq i \leq n$, prove that $\bigcup_{i=1}^n F_i$ is also closed.  I'm looking for a direct proof of this theorem.  (I already know a proof which first shows that a finite intersection of open sets is also open, and then applies De Morgan's law and the theorem "the complement of an open set is closed.")  Note that the theorem is not necessarily true for an infinite collection of closed $\{F_\alpha\}$.  Here are the definitions I'm using:  Let $X$ be a metric space with distance function $d(p, q)$.  For any $p \in X$, the neighborhood $N_r(p)$ is the set $\{x \in X \,|\, d(p, x) &lt; r\}$.  Any $p \in X$ is a limit point of $E$ if $\forall r &gt; 0$, $N_r(p) \cap E \neq \{p\}$ and $\neq \emptyset$.  Any subset $E$ of $X$ is closed if it contains all of its limit points. XML attribute vs XML element