Downloaded Adobe Flah player, went to downloads to run setup, opened the downloaded file but there was no (exe, setup or install). And when I searched on this issue, I had to read a long procedure of copying things here and there. It is just a hassel to install an outsider software.  Is there a rule on this matter?
Even though I have the latest Adobe Flash player 11.2 for Linux in Firefox -   - a particular online flash game still requests that I update to the latest flash player.  I've tried this online game on my laptop (Windows 8 with Flash Player 11.8) and it has no problems.  Is there a way to trick Ubuntu or this game into thinking Flash Player 11.8 is "installed"?
Limiting range of value types in C++ Suppose I have a LimitedValue class which holds a value, and is parameterized on int types 'min' and 'max'.  You'd use it as a container for holding values which can only be in a certain range.  You could use it such:  LimitedValue&lt; float, 0, 360 &gt; someAngle( 45.0 ); someTrigFunction( someAngle );   so that 'someTrigFunction' knows that it is guaranteed to be supplied a valid input (The constructor would throw an exception if the parameter is invalid).  Copy-construction and assignment are limited to exactly equal types, though.  I'd like to be able to do:  LimitedValue&lt; float, 0, 90 &gt; smallAngle( 45.0 ); LimitedValue&lt; float, 0, 360 &gt; anyAngle( smallAngle );   and have that operation checked at compile-time, so this next example gives an error:  LimitedValue&lt; float, -90, 0 &gt; negativeAngle( -45.0 ); LimitedValue&lt; float, 0, 360 &gt; postiveAngle( negativeAngle ); // ERROR!   Is this possible?  Is there some practical way of doing this, or any examples out there which approach this? What is the plural form of "Software"? Prevent mail being marked as spam What defines a PC's consciousness of self, memories and knowledge? I'd really like to learn how to play pen-and-paper RPGs.  I know that it takes a few players to actually sit down and play, but I'm not at all sure where to find more gamers.  How do I find existing groups to join? Or, are there any resources online that may help me find existing RPG groups or players? Why is it so difficult to pull an immersed mug out of the water? Suppose I put a mug in the water and then tilt it so that the water gets inside. It then floats due to buoyant force. But if I try to pull it out then a lot of force is needed. That's due to suction? What exactly happens at the moment when the force I apply is enough to pull the mug out? And what causes the loud pop sound when that happens? Let $f(z)$ be an entire function such that $$|f(z)|&lt;\frac{1}{|\text{Im}(z)|},\qquad z\in\Bbb C-\Bbb R.$$ The question asked me to prove that $f(z)=0$. At least looking at it, it really seems to have an application of Liouville's theorem lurking around somewhere, but I haven't found it.   My thoughts first led me to think about doing this by contradiction and using Picard's little theorem. So, I've considered a strip containing the real axis (say of width $2$ for simplicity). This will imply the complement maps into the unit disk, which implies that this strip has to map almost everywhere else on the complex plane. Now, on the imaginary axis, I know that $f(z)$ will vanish as $z\to\infty$, and this seems like it might be useful. I'm sort of under the impression $f(z)$ might have an essential singularity at $\infty$, which would mean $f(1/z)$ has an essential singularity at $0$. Either way, it of course can't have a pole at $\infty$ because of $f(z)$ vanishing on the imaginary axis, and if it is a removable singularity, it must be $0$, which still gives the solution. Therefore, I think it must have something to do with $f(z)$ having an essential singularity at $\infty$.   I was hoping to combine this with the above inequality and deduce a contradiction, but I haven't thought of one yet.   Any hints or suggestions? I'm studying for a prelim. exam, so this isn't homework.  Update: So, in the spirit of searching methods using the essential singularity at $z=0$, we have $$\left|f\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|\leq\frac{1}{\left|\text{Im}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|}=\frac{|z|^2}{|y|}.$$ Thus, for $|y|&gt;1$, we have $$\left|f\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|&lt;|y|\left|f\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|&lt;|z|^2.$$ Thus, if I can show that $|f(1/z)|$ is a polynomial, we'll know it can't have an essential singularity at the origin, concluding my proof. Chess Piece Combinations I came across a question yesterday about combinations, and I wanted to know what the correct answer was. The question states as follows:  There are 8 spaces that are alternately black and white. There is one king, one queen, two identical rooks, two identical bishops, and two identical knights. The king needs to be surrounded by the two rooks. Then, the two bishops can be put on any of the remaining spaces as long as one is on a black space and the other is on a white space. Finally, the queen and the knights can be placed anywhere in the remaining spaces in relation to the other pieces. How many possible arrangements are there considering these conditions? I use a Asus laptop with dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows 8.1  Wifi is on but I am not able to detect Wifi networks.  When I run :  lspci -knn | grep Net -A3; rfkill list   This is what happens:    I get  acer-wireless: Wireless LAN     Soft blocked: yes apt-get autoremove wants to remove linux headers Today I ran apt-get autoremove to remove un-needed packages and it wants to remove linux-headers-3.2.0-37 and linux-headers-3.2.0-37-generic  Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: libglademm-2.4-1c2a linux-headers-3.2.0-37 linux-headers-3.2.0-37-generic ttf-umefont    ttf-unfonts-core 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 5 to remove and 0 not upgraded. After this operation, 67.6 MB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]?    Is it safe to remove these? My installed kernel is a newer version than the headers that autoremove lists.  uname -r 3.2.0-38-generic What does the big intersection or union sign of a set mean? In some cases, we will have to consider the union or the intersection of several, even infinitely many sets, defined in the obvious way. For example, if for every positive integer $n$, we are given a set $S_n$, then   $$\bbox[border:1px solid red]{\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty S_n}=S_1\cup S_2\cup\cdots=\{x\mid x\in S_n\text{ for some }n\},$$   and   $$\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty S_n=S_1\cap S_2\cap\cdots=\{x\mid x\in S_n\text{ for all }n\}.$$   Two sets are said to be disjoint if their intersection is empty. More generally, several sets are said to be disjoint if no two of them have a common element. A collection of sets is said to be a partition of a set $S$ if the sets in the collection are disjoint and their union is $S$.   Normally what I know is that you can make a union or an intersection between only two sets. In this expression, there is a big union of sets. I'm asking about the meaning of this expression – what does it mean? What does the infinity sign do at the top?  Things are even more complicated with De Morgan's laws, which use the same expression:     Two particularly useful properties are given by De Morgan's laws which state that   $$\left(\bigcup_nS_n\right)^c=\bigcap_nS_n^c,\quad\quad\quad\quad\left(\bigcap_nS_n\right)^c=\bigcup_nS_n^c.$$   Anyone who can explain to me the expression or De Morgan's laws would be much appreciated. What is true for a ring with exactly two right ideals How do I repair my weapons and armor? Why am I seeing a bomb icon on my files and folders in Ubuntu? The  is a proposed propulsion mechanism for spacecraft in which some form of microwave device provides the propulsion. The consensus from the physics community, including many voices on this site, is that the proposed device would violate conservation of momentum.   Several experiments have been conducted, by three main groups: (i) , from Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, (ii) a research group at the Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xi'an, China, and (iii) Eagleworks Laboratories at NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. However, few of these experiments have been performed in vacuum (and none of the vacuum tests has been published in a peer-reviewed journal), which means the effect of air currents around the device cannot be ruled out.  This device has been the subject of many questions on this site, including          and their many closed duplicates.  Many of these questions ask what the proposed explanations are, but then veer off into territory of the form "assuming it is true, how does it work?", so they have been (rightfully) closed as counterfactual physics. I feel this sort of bundling does a lot of harm to the discussion, and there is some scope to ask what exactly is being proposed as an explanation. So:     What do the proponents of EmDrive claim is the theoretical justification of the device's function?   Please limit answers exclusively to references, and indicate whether they are peer-reviewed or not. Please limit answers to serious attempts at explanations, as opposed to vague claims about the 'quantum vacuum' - or indicate if an experimental paper does not have any such theoretical explanation or reference.  To be clear, this is not the place to discuss whether the explanations are correct or not. If you have specific questions about any of these sources, ask it separately. (However, if your question starts with "assuming that this works", be prepared for it to be closed.) If you feel there are not enough resources on this thread, you can  but please do not post another question asking people to look for more references. Find all $n\in\mathbb N^+$ such that the sum of the digits of $5^n$ is equal to $2^n$.   I've solved this, but I think the proof is a bit weird and I wonder if there's a better one.    My proof:  We can see that $n\neq 1$, $n\neq 2$, $n=3$, $n\neq 4$ and $n\neq 5$.  Let $n&gt;5$. Notice that $5^6$ has $5$ digits, while $\frac{2^6}{9}=7\frac{1}{9}$, so $5^6$ has to have at least $8$ digits in order for the sum of the digits to be able to at least reach $2^6$.  Everytime $1$ is added to the exponent of $5$, the amount of digits $5^n$ gets is at most $1$, while $\frac{2^{n+1}}{9}-\frac{2^n}{9}=\frac{2^n}{9}&gt;3$, so the lowest amount of digits it has to have to reach $2^n$ becomes higher by at least $4$.  When $n=6$, the amount of digits $5^n$ has is already lower than the amount it has to have in order to reach $2^n$, and I've just proved that the amount it has to have in order to reach $2^n$ grows faster than the amount of digits $5^n$ has, therefore $5^n$ will never be able to reach $2^n$ when $n&gt;5$.  Hence the only solution is $n=3$. Is cross-posting wrong (to an external site)? I made a question at Stack Overflow long ago and also posted the same question in a non-Stack Exchange website (Xtreme VB Talk). The question .  According to the answer, I shouldn't have cross-posted between Stack&nbsp;Overflow and XtremeVBTalk, because     it increases the probability that wires will get crossed and everyone will waste time.   But I'm not sure why is that wrong. You see, I simply see Stack&nbsp;Overflow and XtremeVBTalk as two different communities with different users. So posting the question in both sites would just give me more answers. And if I got the answer in one of them, I would report back to the other site and let everyone know (and perhaps someone else would be benefited as well). I really doubt it is a waste of time - the more input, the better. The fact that someone was a user in both websites is simply a coincidence.  I realize that Meta&nbsp;Stack&nbsp;Exchange question  exists, but apparently it involves cross-posting within Stack Exchange sites, but this is about external websites instead.  I also realize that I was told that as "advice" (since my question was not flagged or anything), but well, I am now curious: Why would anyone consider this a bad practice? What exactly happens when you browse a website in your browser? Trying to plot the sin(x) function, I get this result:    The MWE is here:  \documentclass{standalone} \usepackage{ pgfplots} \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture} \begin{axis} \addplot[samples=500]{sin(x)}; \end{axis} \end{tikzpicture} \end{document}   cos(x) looks like an inverted parabola and tan looks just like sin.  I'm using pdflatex and MiKTeX. Any ideas? Please describe direct products in the category Rel.