Some lazy assumptions in your analysis, but I will address your positing fabrication.
When I make test addresses, I tend to let randomness do more work and focus mostly on the corner cases for testing the parse.
I'm strongly leaning towards something a combination of your #2 and #3 possibilities, some crappy sites, some other stuff, and they seem to have more, but not enough time to figure out what to do with it all.
I'm not going to explain why because I'd rather have some more time to get ready for the current internet to crater.
(Condemn Intel for insinuating their under-baked IP into all the pipes. Condemn Apple, for joining Intel and Microsoft. More condemnation on Microsoft for taking too long to go under, but how do you make secure systems with Intel's junk in everything, and pushing the features so hard that no one dares focus on building properly securable information systems.)
Sure, it's semi-random data from a bunch of semi-random databases.
There are e-mail addresses in there to be harvested. (I'd hesitate to say even that much, but I'm sure the spammers have already jumped all over those.)
There are passwords. Even though at least some are encoded, that still gives crackers something to run rainbow tables against.
I'd mention more, but I really don't want to give random wannabee social engineers too many clues. (Even dead simple ones.)
There are real security issues here, and pretty much every company on-line in the world had better be tightening up ship, asking users to change their passwords, and combing through that data to see what visible dangers there are.
No, because if you discovered some combination that would allow phones made according to your design to compete in the market, Apple would pay enough lawyers and witnesses (and maybe judges) to pervert the truth until it looked like your design infringed their patents.
There are other things in this particular anecdote which are known to negatively affect weight gain in both children and adults.
(In anecdotes, such contributing factors are often overlooked and/or hidden, which is a big part of the reason why anecdotes, even from people you trust, are hard to integrate with data.)
If we sat down and talked, I'll bet I could point out how even a tenth gram of sugar can sometimes push your blood sugar out of balance.
Actually, this is kind of what sugar intolerance is all about. It's not about completely banning all sugars. You can't do that.
It's about being conscious of what kinds of sugars one consumes, in what forms, what activities coincide with the consumption, etc. It's also about mass-produced so-called food products with way too much cheap sugars.
It's also about learning that the natural flavors of food can be palatable without smothering them in cheap sugars.
When you break the tongue's addiction to the commonly used (because they are cheap and too easily digested) sugars, the tastes in foods are actually useful in helping you figure out what you need to eat.
I've made observations, essentially unplanned experiments including effective blind controls, sufficient that I can see that sugar intolerance is a reality for some people. The interactions are a bit complicated, and I'm not qualified to publish a paper on the subject, but the connection can be seen by someone close enough and willing to observe with open eyes.
Anecdotal, and first/second person from me is third person to you, but,...
Not sure if your 1/10 gram matches the actual amount in a placebo, but the amount of sugar in a non-placebo pill can indeed have bad effects on someone with sugar reactions, including liver and kidney function.
We know that it can have a significant effect on a diabetic person, as well, so there's no need to fuss about the amount.
When someone in the family is sick and claims sugar intolerance, does it do any good to argue whether sugar intolerance is real?
Seriously. Let the person cut back a bit on sugar, even if it means having, for instance, to make one's own biscuits because you can't get sugar free bread in the store. It's not a whole lot of trouble to go to, and home made biscuits are not particularly evil, either. Might even taste good after a bit of practice making them, adjusting the recipe, etc.
Which is on-topic here, because we too often get too involved in arguing about science when the best thing we can do for someone who is sick is just listen, express sympathy and support, and if they think of something sensible to do, encourage them to do it. (Again, for most people, cutting back on sugar is quite sensible.)
Shoot, sympathy and support are often better medicine than anything the doctor can prescribe. Can promote communication, too.
On the other hand, "inert ingredients" means ingredients that show up in a list in a standard as being supposed to be inert when used in a specific way. Thus, YMMV.
Raising the mandatory retirement age is raising the age at which the government's employment rules say, "Move over, get out of the way, let the younger kids have their turn at having fun!" It's the age at which the government comes after both the employer and the employee and starts denying tax breaks, issuing fines, etc., if the employee won't quit working full time.
I think you're thinking about the age at which a non-full-timer can start drawing pension funds and retirement benefits.Before you raise that age, you have to look at the average life expectancy, the general state of health, etc. in the last n years before people die, etc. You want to set that age so that the non-existent average person has a reasonable expectancy of a reasonable amount of time to enjoy retirement.
And then you get into definitions of "enjoying retirement", and "a reasonable amount of time" and such idiocies.
In an ideal world, the government would not be collecting or paying pension or insurance, and would not be having to draw either line. Leave it up to the individual. Sure, the average twenty-year old is going to do stupid things like buying sports cars and tobacco instead of saving.
No, the average twenty-year old will not. Some will, but by the logic of letting the tobacco smoker just die early if he wants to, we should be willing to let the person who doesn't want to save responsibly die early for lack of pension, too.
Of course, there will usually be family and friends who will pick up the burdens in both cases. And they are the ones who should.
If they can and if they will. Which is the whole problem here.
Anyway, the government, if it's going to get involved, should constantly adjust the regulations so that people who want to do right things aren't getting too many roadblocks in their way.
There are simple security issues like the strength of a password or the strength of encryption on the file where the password is stored.
Security includes harder system problems, like where the password file should be stored, should they all be stored together, how to enforce permissions or privileges on the password file(s) and so forth.
And even harder problems, like how do you encrypt the username/password exchange. (And whether and how the username should be encrypted as well.)
And then you get to the really difficult problems of managing security. Which includes secretaries and help desk personnel and customer policies that are susceptible to social engineering. These, also, are part of security.
Nobody is going to pay you to literally count beans in jars all day long.
Stuff beyond that requires the ability to work with sums of series that some people understand intuitively, and the rest of us learn in calculus.
(And, actually, those of us who understood it intuitively generally discover later how much we missed because we thought it was too easy.)
Yes, we use math even if we don't understand that we do. That includes higher math, and discrete math is actually part of the higher math.
You generally take calculus first because most people don't have the tools to work with discrete math until they have taken calculus. Many of those tools are actually part of calculus, even though they can be understood and used intuitively by some people.
Agreed. If you can't handle summing a series, you're going to have a hard time getting the database queries right, and summing a series correctly is already calculus.
When did you take the discrete math -- before or after calculus?
Unless you are an exception, you took it after.
Go back and look at the tools for reasoning that you use to understand discrete math. Where did you learn most of those tools?
Well, I know that in jr. high school, there were kids who instinctively understood set theory. I was one of them. But even for me, there were dark corners that I could not pierce until I had calculus, and it was getting light in those dark corners that made it possible for me to understand programs beyond the most rudimentary level of sequences, conditionals, looping.
Even writing a function, without the tools I learned in calculus, I would have a much harder time defining the function, deciding what to include and what to put elsewhere, determining what should be parameters, etc.
I don't consciously use derivatives and integrals, but I use the same tools that I learned to use when learning those. And calculus really is not just derivatives and integrals.
Slashdot Mirror
Aluminum Oxide.
Alzheimer's here we come.
Some lazy assumptions in your analysis, but I will address your positing fabrication.
When I make test addresses, I tend to let randomness do more work and focus mostly on the corner cases for testing the parse.
I'm strongly leaning towards something a combination of your #2 and #3 possibilities, some crappy sites, some other stuff, and they seem to have more, but not enough time to figure out what to do with it all.
I'm not going to explain why because I'd rather have some more time to get ready for the current internet to crater.
(Condemn Intel for insinuating their under-baked IP into all the pipes. Condemn Apple, for joining Intel and Microsoft. More condemnation on Microsoft for taking too long to go under, but how do you make secure systems with Intel's junk in everything, and pushing the features so hard that no one dares focus on building properly securable information systems.)
Sure, it's semi-random data from a bunch of semi-random databases.
There are e-mail addresses in there to be harvested. (I'd hesitate to say even that much, but I'm sure the spammers have already jumped all over those.)
There are passwords. Even though at least some are encoded, that still gives crackers something to run rainbow tables against.
I'd mention more, but I really don't want to give random wannabee social engineers too many clues. (Even dead simple ones.)
There are real security issues here, and pretty much every company on-line in the world had better be tightening up ship, asking users to change their passwords, and combing through that data to see what visible dangers there are.
What, you're suggesting somebody here get out and run for office or something?
Gotta cite for that?
How was it that they were found not to be infringing? Under what argument? Just because they were not Android or something?
No, because if you discovered some combination that would allow phones made according to your design to compete in the market, Apple would pay enough lawyers and witnesses (and maybe judges) to pervert the truth until it looked like your design infringed their patents.
Wait, isn't that pretty much what happened here?
I suppose the language being used may not match the message, but is the message itself intended to be a troll?
In fact, most stock offerings are very nearly scams at first.
Not sure which way that argues relative to bitcoin, but it seems to me that bitcoin is still currency in search of a (real) value context.
For people who would prefer to interact with bash on the console in languages that have large character sets -- Japanese, in my case.
Installed debian with Japanese as the default system language and the console dumps Japanese messages at me.
Currently, they are not renderable, and I have spent some time trying to fix that.
Yeah, I can change the environment variables, etc., but I would like to be able to just leave it as is and get readable Japanese in the console.
Yeah, and now we have evidence that it might not be just the excess grains.
I think the final bite of sarcasm was a little too much. (Or maybe a little too close to grim reality these days.)
There are other things in this particular anecdote which are known to negatively affect weight gain in both children and adults.
(In anecdotes, such contributing factors are often overlooked and/or hidden, which is a big part of the reason why anecdotes, even from people you trust, are hard to integrate with data.)
Are you controlling your diabetes? How?
If we sat down and talked, I'll bet I could point out how even a tenth gram of sugar can sometimes push your blood sugar out of balance.
Actually, this is kind of what sugar intolerance is all about. It's not about completely banning all sugars. You can't do that.
It's about being conscious of what kinds of sugars one consumes, in what forms, what activities coincide with the consumption, etc. It's also about mass-produced so-called food products with way too much cheap sugars.
It's also about learning that the natural flavors of food can be palatable without smothering them in cheap sugars.
When you break the tongue's addiction to the commonly used (because they are cheap and too easily digested) sugars, the tastes in foods are actually useful in helping you figure out what you need to eat.
I've made observations, essentially unplanned experiments including effective blind controls, sufficient that I can see that sugar intolerance is a reality for some people. The interactions are a bit complicated, and I'm not qualified to publish a paper on the subject, but the connection can be seen by someone close enough and willing to observe with open eyes.
What is the OS?
Anecdotal, and first/second person from me is third person to you, but, ...
Not sure if your 1/10 gram matches the actual amount in a placebo, but the amount of sugar in a non-placebo pill can indeed have bad effects on someone with sugar reactions, including liver and kidney function.
We know that it can have a significant effect on a diabetic person, as well, so there's no need to fuss about the amount.
When someone in the family is sick and claims sugar intolerance, does it do any good to argue whether sugar intolerance is real?
Seriously. Let the person cut back a bit on sugar, even if it means having, for instance, to make one's own biscuits because you can't get sugar free bread in the store. It's not a whole lot of trouble to go to, and home made biscuits are not particularly evil, either. Might even taste good after a bit of practice making them, adjusting the recipe, etc.
Which is on-topic here, because we too often get too involved in arguing about science when the best thing we can do for someone who is sick is just listen, express sympathy and support, and if they think of something sensible to do, encourage them to do it. (Again, for most people, cutting back on sugar is quite sensible.)
Shoot, sympathy and support are often better medicine than anything the doctor can prescribe. Can promote communication, too.
Inert means inert, yes.
On the other hand, "inert ingredients" means ingredients that show up in a list in a standard as being supposed to be inert when used in a specific way. Thus, YMMV.
Raising the mandatory retirement age is raising the age at which the government's employment rules say, "Move over, get out of the way, let the younger kids have their turn at having fun!" It's the age at which the government comes after both the employer and the employee and starts denying tax breaks, issuing fines, etc., if the employee won't quit working full time.
I think you're thinking about the age at which a non-full-timer can start drawing pension funds and retirement benefits.Before you raise that age, you have to look at the average life expectancy, the general state of health, etc. in the last n years before people die, etc. You want to set that age so that the non-existent average person has a reasonable expectancy of a reasonable amount of time to enjoy retirement.
And then you get into definitions of "enjoying retirement", and "a reasonable amount of time" and such idiocies.
In an ideal world, the government would not be collecting or paying pension or insurance, and would not be having to draw either line. Leave it up to the individual. Sure, the average twenty-year old is going to do stupid things like buying sports cars and tobacco instead of saving.
No, the average twenty-year old will not. Some will, but by the logic of letting the tobacco smoker just die early if he wants to, we should be willing to let the person who doesn't want to save responsibly die early for lack of pension, too.
Of course, there will usually be family and friends who will pick up the burdens in both cases. And they are the ones who should.
If they can and if they will. Which is the whole problem here.
Anyway, the government, if it's going to get involved, should constantly adjust the regulations so that people who want to do right things aren't getting too many roadblocks in their way.
The really amusing thing is that this is exactly what passwords originally were.
Before computers, I mean.
There are simple security issues like the strength of a password or the strength of encryption on the file where the password is stored.
Security includes harder system problems, like where the password file should be stored, should they all be stored together, how to enforce permissions or privileges on the password file(s) and so forth.
And even harder problems, like how do you encrypt the username/password exchange. (And whether and how the username should be encrypted as well.)
And then you get to the really difficult problems of managing security. Which includes secretaries and help desk personnel and customer policies that are susceptible to social engineering. These, also, are part of security.
Sum of a series.
Nobody is going to pay you to literally count beans in jars all day long.
Stuff beyond that requires the ability to work with sums of series that some people understand intuitively, and the rest of us learn in calculus.
(And, actually, those of us who understood it intuitively generally discover later how much we missed because we thought it was too easy.)
Yes, we use math even if we don't understand that we do. That includes higher math, and discrete math is actually part of the higher math.
You generally take calculus first because most people don't have the tools to work with discrete math until they have taken calculus. Many of those tools are actually part of calculus, even though they can be understood and used intuitively by some people.
All three of his personalities at work use math.
Agreed. If you can't handle summing a series, you're going to have a hard time getting the database queries right, and summing a series correctly is already calculus.
Question for you:
When did you take the discrete math -- before or after calculus?
Unless you are an exception, you took it after.
Go back and look at the tools for reasoning that you use to understand discrete math. Where did you learn most of those tools?
Well, I know that in jr. high school, there were kids who instinctively understood set theory. I was one of them. But even for me, there were dark corners that I could not pierce until I had calculus, and it was getting light in those dark corners that made it possible for me to understand programs beyond the most rudimentary level of sequences, conditionals, looping.
Even writing a function, without the tools I learned in calculus, I would have a much harder time defining the function, deciding what to include and what to put elsewhere, determining what should be parameters, etc.
I don't consciously use derivatives and integrals, but I use the same tools that I learned to use when learning those. And calculus really is not just derivatives and integrals.