What steps do I take to upgrade from LTS 12.04 to LTS 14.04 with the least amount of trouble and loosing the fewest amount of data.
What are the different ways I can use to upgrade Ubuntu from one release to another?
Sci-fi story where all 'citizens' had shares in a global company Not everyone was a citizen though, there was a significant underclass who had no shares.  One character was a celebrity in some sort of combat game who was followed by camera drones &amp; used drugs to suppress puberty so he waa an eternal 'child', I have the impression that medical science allowed virtual immortality short of accidents.  One character (may have been the same one) had had a 'previous life' &amp; had committed personality suicide by some form of mind wipe bequeathing his worldly possessions to the new personality that would eventually develop in his old body.  I think the motive for this 'suicide' was essentially boredom, he'd lived a long time.  The mind wipe in question was pretty extensive &amp; all encompassing, he had to be cared for &amp; educated from scratch as if a newborn baby in an adult body, nappies &amp; all (but I'm pretty sure this was purely backstory in the book I read).  He also had miniature nano organisms (or bots?) like miniature worms or millipedes that complimented his immune system &amp; aided healing, they were self replicating, pretty sure they were some sort of bioengineered organism tailored to his DNA rather than bots  but not 100% on that.  There was an organism spanning a large area on the planet that absorbed (or consumed) anything that wandered into it but saved the DNA of anything it had previously absorbed &amp; might randomly reproduce any animal plant or individual it had previously absorbed fully formed.  One of the characters fell into this but got pulled out before the full effects took hold, as a result he grew leaves from his head &amp; his immune system was then constantly battling with the 'infection'.  When did I read this? probably some time in the 80's in the UK.  When was it written? I haven't a clue, sorry.  It was a paperback, probably something I had out of a library, because I never get rid of anything I've bought myself so I'd still have it &amp; be able to dig it out if it wasn't a library loan.  I have lots of fragments of world background &amp; 'colour' that seem to have stuck in my mind there, but a complete lack of any story arc to go with them. Given a simple graph and its complement, prove that either of them is always connected. I was tasked to prove that when given 2 graphs $G$ and $\bar{G}$ (complement), at least one of them is a always a connected graph.  Well, I always post my attempt at solution, but here I'm totally stuck. I tried to do raw algebraic manipulations with # of components, circuit ranks, etc, but to no avail. So I really hope someone could give me a hint on how to approach this problem. The Earth in all of its varieties has wide ranging climates. At the top level it has tropical, dry, temperate, continental, and polar climates. And yet often the planets depicted in science fiction are often single climate planets.    The forest moon of Endor The desert planet of Dune The desert planet of Tatooine The desert planet of Vulcan The outer planets in Firefly all appeared to be mostly desert (supiciously like Calfornia desert).  The inner planets in Firefly were all temperate or tropical.  The icy Breen homeworld The icy Andorian homeworld The icy Frost Giant planet   I'm not suggesting there are no Earth-like planets in science fiction, but it feels like it is less common than it should be. Considering the only planet we have as an example is our own, it seems like planets should be just as varied in the cosmos. Differentiability implies continuity - A question about the proof I have a question, to aid my understanding, about the proof that differentiability implies continutity.$\mathstrut$    Differentiability Definition  When we say a function is differentiable at $x_0$, we mean that the limit:  $$‎f^{\prime} ‎(x) = \lim_{x\to x_0} \frac{f(x) - f(x_0)}{x-x_0}$$ exists.  Continuity Definition  When we say a function is continuous at $x_0$, we mean that: $$\lim_{x\to x_0} f(x) - f(x_0) = 0$$  Theorem: Differentiability implies Continuity: If $f$ is a differentiable function at $x_0$, then it is continuous at $x_0$.  Proof:  Let us suppose that $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$. Then $$ \lim_{x\to x_0} \frac{f(x) - f(x_0)}{x-x_0} =  ‎f^{\prime} ‎(x) $$  and hence  $$ \lim_{x\to x_0} f(x) - f(x_0) = \lim_{x\to x_0} \left[ \frac{f(x) - f(x_0)}{x-x_0} \right] \cdot \lim_{x\to x_0} (x-x_0) = 0$$  We have therefore shown that, using the definition of continuous, if the function is differentiable at $x_0$, it must also be continuous.  My Question  The proof seems to execute the following steps:   Assume the function is continuous at $x_0$ Show that, with little algebra, we can change this into an equivalent question about differentiability at $x_0$. With this little bit of algebra, we can show that if a function is differentiable at $x_0$ it is also continuous.   What I am slightly unsure about is the apparent circularity. In my mind it seems to say, if a function is continuous, we can show that if it is also differentiable, then it is continuous. Rather than what I was expecting, namely, if a function is differentiable, we can show it must be continuous.  Hopefully my confusion is clear. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Is there a cross-browser onload event when clicking the back button? I have an alpha version of Ubuntu.  When the stable version is released do I have to upgrade or is it already stable from the installed updates? Wifi problems with rtl8723be in Ubuntu 14.04 Evaluate forecasting ability of GARCH models with RMSE and MAE I am evaluating different forecasting models and their ability to forecast index volatility during period of market turmoil, using two measurements, Root Mean Square Error and Mean Absolute Error. For the previous evaluated models, ARMA (1,1) as an example, I was able to obtain the residuals and calculate the RMSE quite easily in Stata.   When estimating the GARCH (1,1) model in Stata I am however not able to correctly obtain the residuals in the post estimation procedure, no option to directly obtain the RMSE is available. Perhaps I have misunderstood how one should evaluate the forecasting ability of GARCH models, since the models specifies the conditional variance unlike ARMA which specifies the conditional mean.   Does anyone have a suggestion on how to obtain these evaluation measurements after estimating a GARCH model? And preferably how to do it in Stata. When I run followind command: qdbus I get following error:  qdbus: could not find a Qt installation of ''  I've read alot of old questions with same error but not one helps me.  I've tried execute following commands sudo apt-get install qt5-default + same for for qt4, etc. but still have same error.  If any additional information required for this issue - please add comment and I'll provide info. Why does $\sqrt{n\sqrt{n\sqrt{n \ldots}}} = n$? Ok, so I've been playing around with radical graphs and such lately, and I discovered that if the   nth x = √(1st x √ 2nd x ... √nth x);   Then  $$\text{the "infinith" } x = x$$  Example:   $$\sqrt{4\sqrt{4\sqrt{4\sqrt{4\ldots}}}}=4$$ Try it yourself, type calc in Google search, hit  then a number, such as $4$, and repeat, ending with $4$, (or press the buttons instead).  I'm a math-head, not big enough though, I think this sequence is divergent or convergent or whatever, too lazy to search up the difference.  However, can this be explained to me? Like how the Pythagorean Theorem can be explained visually. ii) Show that $u$ is not a real part of the function which analytic on $\mathbb{C} \backslash \lbrace 0 \rbrace$ Suppose $u(x,y)=\ln(x^2+y^2)$  i) Show that $u$ is harmonic on $\mathbb{C} \backslash \lbrace 0 \rbrace$  ii) Show that $u$ is not the real part of a function which analytic on  $\mathbb{C} \backslash \lbrace 0 \rbrace$  I manage to show the first part. For the second part, note that $u(x,y)=\ln(x^2+y^2)=\ln(|z|^2)=2 \Re \log(z)$  But this only show that $u$ is not a real part of $\log(z)$. I don know how to show $u$ cannot be the real part of a function which analytic on $\mathbb{C} \backslash \lbrace 0 \rbrace$  Can anyone guide me? Rotate a long bar in space and get close to (or even beyond) the speed of light $c$ In the 70's or 80's I read a short story in which 2 astronauts looking for a nice place to eat lunch choose a spot at the pole of a small desolate planet, overlooking the world's only pool of surface water.  Due to the harsh extremes of heat, and lack of water, this is the home of the planet's single living organism, which has grown slowly over eons,  surviving the daily extremes, moving slowly over the bare rock, dissolving it with acidic digestive juices to get the nutrients it needs for survival. The men watch the organism while eating their lunch, then depart, unknowingly leaving death behind them in their garbage - cigarette butts, tin cans, wrappings - a bonanza that the creature moves over to dissolve and ingest, along with the human-based microscopic organisms that will destroy the alien being. The theme of the story is that although we reach out to the stars to seek life, we are much more connected to the lowest forms of life on Earth, than to any life we may find on other planets. I don't remember the author and title.  Can someone identify the story? Calendar.getInstance(TimeZone.getTimeZone("UTC")) is not returning UTC time Why do non-constant periodic functions have no limit at infinity? What is the $n$ times iterate of $f(x)=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}$? Transpose/Unzip Function (inverse of zip)? I have a list of 2-item tuples and I'd like to convert them to 2 lists where the first contains the first item in each tuple and the second list holds the second item.  For example:  original = [('a', 1), ('b', 2), ('c', 3), ('d', 4)] # and I want to become... result = (['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'], [1, 2, 3, 4])   Is there a builtin function that does that? Easy is to beginner as medium is to I want to display three levels in my game...but I don't know what the text should say.  easy -&gt; Beginner  medium -&gt; ?  hard -&gt; Expert   Basically, I want the form that describes the person playing the game, instead of the game itself. What adjective is best?  I have considered adept.  I doubt my users will know what adept means. Also, I need something in between expert and beginner. Adept falls into the expert category. Is there anything more common that I can use, that has the same impact as the other two words I mentioned?  Proficient would work, theoretically, but in day-to-day term, the levels "beginner - proficient - expert" won't sound great. Why is gravity such a unique force? My knowledge on this particular field of physics is very sketchy, but I frequently hear of a theoretical "graviton", the quantum of the gravitational field.  So I guess most physicists' assumption is that gravity can be described by a QFT?  But I find this weird, because gravity seems so incredibly different from the other forces (yes, I know "weirdness" isn't any sort of scientific deduction principle).  For relative strengths:   Strong force: $10^{38}$ Electromagnetic force: $10^{36}$ Weak force: $10^{25}$ Gravity: $1$   Not only does gravity have a vastly weaker magnitude, it also has a very strange interaction with everything else.  Consider the Standard Model interactions:    No particle (or field) interacts directly with all other fields.  Heck, gluons only barely interact with the rest of them.  So why is it then that anything that has energy (e.g. everything that exists) also has a gravitational interaction?  Gravity seems unique in that all particles interact through it.  Then there's the whole issue of affecting spacetime.  As far as I'm aware, properties such as charge, spin, color, etc. don't affect spacetime (only the energy related to these properties). Did the verb “fire a weapon” exist before the actual introduction of firearms on battlefields?  More specifically, does it make sense for a creative work to have archers (or whatever ranged weaponry) be told to “fire!”, when the world they live in has not yet seen firearms?  It seems some kind of an anachronism to me, since before firearms, “fire” would never propel any projectile...  I've seen several movies do it; I can't remember them all, but for instance I verified it in The Lord of the Rings trilogy (left), Kingdom of Heaven (top right), and more recently Frozen (bottom right):    The first two do it several times (with Kingdom of Heaven also using it on ballistae, and The Return of the King even having Aragorn ask Legolas to ), whereas firearms never appear on the battlefields they feature (Kingdom of Heaven is set in the 12th century; as for The Lord of the Rings, apart from one occurrence of a witchcraft-ish bomb, it's archery and medieval siege engines all the way).  Frozen may be debatable, happening probably somewhere in the 18th or 19th century, but since we only see swords, spears and the like, it made me flinch to hear crossbowmen use “fire!”.  I've also noticed other movies avoiding this, using “loose!” instead, such as Troy (left) and Gladiator (right):    This makes me think it would be the right thing to say instead... although I'm still wondering why not use “shoot”, which seems simpler to me.