Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS Installation Failure on HP CE 1000Tu Laptop

My new Laptop HP Pavilion 14 CE1000Tu came preloaded with Windows 10. I wanted Ubuntu and Windows so used the Windows disk management console to set around 80GB for Ubuntu. The problem is I am not able to try Ubuntu or Install it. I keep getting ACPI Error that says parse failed then it goes to the Ubuntu screen and again comes back to the error screen saying ACPI Error(Bug) parse failed. I disabled secure boot and tried but I am not able to install or even use Ubuntu Live both seem to fail.

Below are my partitions. enter image description here

I have updated my BIOS to the latest version as well but does not seem to change the result.

Are Result objects the cleaner way to handle failure, than exceptions? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • Are error variables an anti-pattern or good design? 11 answers

I was watching the following video by Vladimir Khorikov, which recommends to “Refactoring Away from Exceptions” pluralsight.com – Applying Functional Principles in C# – Refactoring Away from Exceptions and instead using a Result object. You can also find a blog about it here: enterprisecraftsmanship.com – Functional C#: Handling failures, input errors

To summarize it, the recommendation is to prefer returning a result object then throwing an exception. Exceptions should be used to signalize a bug only. The arguments for this approach are the following:

  • Methods which throws exceptions are not “honest”. You can’t recognize if a method is expected to fail or not, by looking at its signature.
  • Exception handling adds a lot of boiler plate code.
  • When exceptions are used to control the flow, it has a “goto” semantic, where you can jump to specific line of code.

On the other hand return values can be ignored (at least in C#), which exceptions can not.

Is it a good idea to refactor a existing enterprise application in this direction? Or is a less radical approach the better one? (I belive that it make sense for sure to avoid Vexing exceptions by using return types for method like ValidateUserInput(string input))

Note that Are error variables an anti-pattern or good design? is a similar question. The difference is, that I am not talking about “Error by magic values” (returning a error code or even worse null) which is clearly an anti pattern. I am talking about the pattern presented by Vladimir Khorikov, which doesn’t have the same drawbacks like just returning a primitive error code. (For example: Result objects have a error message, like exceptions does)

com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.CommunicationsException: Communications link failure en Java

Tardes o Noches; Necesito que me ayuden en un error, estoy empezando a trabajar con una base de datos en java, ósea MySQL con XAMPP, estoy en el sistema operativo MAC y estoy usando Netbeans.

este es el codigo que use en uno de los botones donde insertaba informacion en la base de datos:

try {          //Class.forName("com.mysql.jdbc.Driver").newInstance();         Connection cn = DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:mysql://localhost/David_Productions", "root", "");         PreparedStatement pst = cn.prepareStatement("insert into alumnos values(?,?,?)");          pst.setString(1, "0");         pst.setString(2, txt_nombre.getText().trim());         pst.setString(3, txt_grupo.getText().trim());         pst.executeUpdate();          txt_nombre.setText("");         txt_grupo.setText("");          label_status.setText("Registro exitoso");      } catch (SQLException e) {          System.out.println("Error " + e);      } 

Estoy usando en este programa el .jar: mysql-connector-java-5.1.46.jar y este es el error que me salta(usando un try-catch):

com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.CommunicationsException: Communications link failure  The last packet sent successfully to the server was 0 milliseconds ago. The driver has not received any packets from the server. 

Aca les dejo el link para descargar el proyecto:

http://www.mediafire.com/folder/twvv4wivfcwnr/Java_28%5BTrabajando%20con%20Bases%20de%20Datos%20con%20MySQL%5D

Por favor ayudenme

Compilation failure in installing NTL library NEED HELP!

I’m trying to install NTL Library in Ubuntu and having problems

What I typed in the terminal is:

gunzip ntl-xxx.tar.gz

tar xf ntl-xxx.tar

cd ntl-xxx/src

./configure

After entering from the last line, the following error message appears.

Compilation failed

See compilerOutput.log for details

Goodbye! at DoConfig line 616.

How can I modify this error. Plz, answer my question.

I need your help DESPERATELY TT Thank you so much in advance.

efi session failure for live boot repair Gigabyte mobo

Am trying to recover boot for an install of 18.04 and every attempt returns me to an error saying that I am booted in legacy mode and need efi session. I have a gigabyte 990-UD3 motherboard. Can someone help me figure out how to set this up? I have changed the boot options for usb to uefi only and my flash drive no longer shows up to boot then set it to auto and still get the same message as when I set it to Uefi first then legacy… Frustrated…

  • List item

Cuckoo hashing with a stash: how tight are the bounds on the failure probability?

I was reading this very good summary of Cuckoo hashing.

It includes a result (page 5) that:

A stash of constant sizes reduces the probability of any failure to fall from $ \Theta(1/n)$ to $ \Theta(1/n^{s+1})$ for the case of $ d= 2$ choices

It references the paper KMW08. But KMW08 only has the result (Theorem 2.1) that:

For every constant integer $ s \geq 1$ , for a sufficiently large constant $ \alpha$ , the size $ S$ of the stash after all items have been inserted satisfies $ Pr(S \geq s) =O(n^{-s})$ .

Note that the $ s$ in the different theorems is slightly different, in the first if the stash is of size $ s$ , it is not a failure, in the second, if the stash is of size $ s$ it is a failure. This is why the first has $ s+1$ and the second has $ s$ .

The difference between the two is then that the first uses theta-notation, whereas the second uses big-O notation. So my questions:

  • Do we know that the failure probability is $ \Omega(n^{-(s+1)})$ ?
  • If so, do we know the constants in the $ \Theta(n^{-(s+1)})$ expression?

And if so, which papers presented these results?

Ping failure monitor

the network frequently fails and I would like to monitor the output. I tried to makeshift a command like:

ping www.google.fr | while read pong; do echo "$  (date): $  pong"; done 1>/dev/null && 2> ~/ping_err.log 

but the STDERR is still redirected to STDOUT instead ping_err.log

note: I want only STDERR in the file (not 2>&1)

Thanks!

Lenovo Legion PXI-E61 Media Test Failure, Check Cable. Exiting PXE ROM. Then restarts and works fine

After a series of unfortunate events, I was finally able to install ubuntu 19.04 in my Lenovo Legion Y530. I had to install the OS for like 10 times after erasing the last ubuntu installation again and again. (after erasing the preinstalled windows 10 for the first time) and in Legacy Mode. Now the problem I am facing is the following:

When I start the machine, after displaying Legion logo, the following message comes:

Intel UNDI , PXE 2.1 ....Realtek PCIe GBE family controller series v2.66... PXE-E61: Media Test Failure, check cable. PXE-M0F: Exiting PXE ROM. 

After that, it shuts down, starts again and loads ubuntu properly

Specs and other info:

Lenovo Legion Y530 No Dual Boot HDD (No SDD) 8 GB RAM 4 GB NVIDIA GeForce 1050 Ubuntu 19.04 Legacy Mode 

I don’t know why is it happening?

Proving that the failure of algorithm W implies that the program is not typable

How one does prove that if algorithm W failed for a given program $ e$ and context $ \Gamma$ , then there is no substitution $ S$ and type $ \tau$ such that $ S\Gamma \vdash e : \tau$ ?

The original paper states that from the completeness proof one can derive that “it is decidable whether $ e$ has any type at all under the assumptions $ \Gamma$ “. However, I didn’t found this proof in the literature.

The algorithm W has some failures cases: the unification algorithm failed, an identifier was not found in the context, a recursive call failed, etc.

I more interested in the hard cases, the easy ones I can do myself.

One hard case seems to be the failure of the unification. In this case we know about the soundness and completeness of both recursive calls and, also, the non-existence of a unifier for $ S_2\tau_1$ and $ \tau_2\rightarrow \alpha$ . How those informations can be used to prove $ \neg \exists \tau \:S, S\Gamma \vdash e_1 \: e_2 : \tau $ ?

This part of algorithm W may be relevant here:

$ W(\Gamma, e_1\: e_2)$ =

$ (\tau_1,S_1) \leftarrow W(\Gamma, e_1)$

$ (\tau_2,S_2) \leftarrow W(S_1\Gamma, e_2)$

$ S \leftarrow unify(S_2\tau_1, \tau_2\rightarrow \alpha)$ where $ \alpha$ is fresh

return $ (S\alpha, S_\circ S_1 \circ S_2)$

There are other hard cases, but I will be accepting an answer if it is about at least this one.