Good for you. As a Bank of America customer, I'm transferring more money over to them because they are willing to stand up to a bully who is in receipt of a stolen hard drive and trying to damage the organization.
Do you have any proof the hard drive in question was stolen?
It may be an exec's personal laptop hard drive, and when he got fired, he sent it in.
As for "trying to damage the organization, BofA doesn't need any help with that. They have that one covered all by themselves.
The file was released a while ago. It's heavily encrypted, and several people have copies. It's only if Assange is physically harmed that the files will be decrypted and posted.
Apparently, it's stuff that makes the current revelations look like weak beer.
My guess? The story behind the Kennedy assassinations.
Why? Because it has to be something that's been around for a while, not recent; it has to be something that people want to know about; it has to be something controversial; and it has to have connections with a lot of the "dirty tricks" that have been going on for decades.
Makes me wonder what Congress has been snorting all these years...
All bad laws do is lower respect for all laws. Here's the solution:
For every new law you pass, you have to remove two old ones
No consolidating, no riders, etc.
If the word count of the new law is higher than the combined word counts of the two old laws that are removed, additional laws have to also be removed until the word count achieves parity
It would cut down on excess verbiage, legalese, and get some outdated laws off the books.
First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.
Treatable does not mean curable, even though in many cases, people return to normal blood sugar levels without medication when lose the excess weight and eat properly.
Also, someone doing everything right even with diabetes will live longer than the people around them who do not take care of themselves. Diabetes is not a "premature death sentence". Sure, people with type 2 diabetes die younger - the majority are paying the price for decades of carrying all that extra weight around. Obesity in and of itself is a significant risk factor. Type 2 diabetes is a marker.
And you'll have to agree that people who receive medical attention on a regular basis do better than those who don't - and that diabetics generally see a doctor more often. AND they get a lot more advice about healthy lifestyles, and those who follow that advice are more likely to be living a better lifestyle than their peers. So there's no reason to believe that they would do worse, since diabetes itself is treatable.
Example on my paternal side - my 87-year-old aunt. Type 2 diabetes. Doesn't smoke. A couple of uncles on the same side of the family, within a few years of that age, also don't smoke, and one also has type 2. Their siblings who smoked? All dead, decades ago.
Example on the maternal side - everyone who didn't smoke made it at least to their '70's. Smokers? Nowhere near it.
Now most of these people smoked at one point in their lives. Some gave it up after a good health scare, some didn't. The ones who didn't are dead. The ones who did are alive, because they adopted a healthier lifestyle, and received more medical attention.
To expect otherwise, for a disease that is as easily treated as diabetes, is a bit perverse. To claim otherwise is to actively discourage people from taking the steps they need to take to live longer lives.
Not all applications require 100% ACID compliance.
Plan for things to fail, and when they do, you won't be in such a panic.
As for:
on all likely relevant platforms, processes hold resources, not threads. So killing a thread doesn't do anything to help with resource management and/or reclamation.
The pthread_detach() function shall indicate to the implementation that storage for the thread thread can be reclaimed when that thread terminates. If thread has not terminated, pthread_detach() shall not cause it to terminate. The effect of multiple pthread_detach() calls on the same target thread is unspecified.
You can mark for deletion and reclaim the storage and other resources associated with a thread (of course, after it has terminated executing) with the command:
#include
int pthread_detach(pthread_t thread);
This command will not terminate a thread that is executing, only indicating that we want to reclaim automatically its storage when it terminates execution.
Other ways of reclaiming the resources of a thread are:
If the thread was created with attribute set to PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED, or
If this thread is waited for with a pthread_join call.
So does the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
pthread_exit() is the way to claim thread-local data.
Regardless of the method of thread termination, any cancellation
cleanup handlers that have been pushed and not yet popped are executed,
and the destructors for any existing thread-specific data are executed.
Normally, you also write clean-up routines for closing file handles, freeing up any manualy malloc'd memory and returning it to the arena, etc.
Because POSIX creates threads as joinable by default, this example changes the thread’s attributes to create a detached thread. Marking the thread as detached gives the system a chance to reclaim the resources for that thread immediately when it exits.
and even the Aussies at Cardiff U agree pthread_destroy()
that you can free up all memory allocated, so as long as you clean up the stuff YOU allocated, and allow the library to free up the stuff allocated at thread creation and initialization.
So, what relevant platforms don't support pthreads?
Additionally, every city in Puerto Rico qualifies as a US-owned city that is not in a state. (Puerto Rico is one of several unincorporated US territories).
Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico have been given U.S. citizenship. United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico, whether born there or not, are not residents of a state or the District of Columbia and, therefore, do not qualify to vote, personally or through an absentee ballot, in federal elections
There are also other U.S.territories, many with cities or towns, and some with capitals, that are not part of a state.
Sure, people tend to overlook the territories, but Washington?
switched to Postgres because MySQL lacks deferred foreign key constraints. Real world example: Model a city<-->state relationship where every city must have a state. Now, require that every state have a capital city. Now, enable foreign key constraints. Oops, we just broke MySQL.
What's the matter, did you fail geography? The example given was just plain wrong. Not every American city has a state, and not every capital has a state, not even in the Lower 48.
Looks like Canadians know more about American geography than Americans.
Just skimming all your posts, if you're not a troll, god help you. Or rather any poor company that lets you touch their code. You shouldn't be allowed to touch any software with a 10 foot stick.
Here, let me give you a clue. If you're using a stick to write software, you're doing it wrong:-)
I started on MySQL, but switched to Postgres because MySQL lacks deferred foreign key constraints. Real world example: Model a city<-->state relationship where every city must have a state. Now, require that every state have a capital city. Now, enable foreign key constraints. Oops, we just broke MySQL.
Just a quick observation: Your model is already broken. Even in the U.S., not every city has a state, and neither does every capital.
If I absolutely needed 100% data integrity, I'd write my own server. And I certainly wouldn't use SQL.
You think you're smarter than the people working on PostgreSQL, Oracle DB, and other databases (SQL relational or otherwise) known for their ACID properties?
You think writing your own server will provide 100% data integrity?
First, if I wouldn't need to implement all the features - just the ones I want, the job would be a lot simpler.
And yes, I *have* written multi-threaded servers - in c - and they run for months at a time without losing one byte of memory, and without having to kill off threads to reclaim memory lost from leaks.
So yes, if I had to, and someone was willing to pay for it, I could write a server to do a specific job, which is not the same as writing a general-purpose rdbms.
But that's neither here nor there - mysql is good enough for many tasks, so I use it.
When's the last time you lost data with mysql that was directly attributable to the database, and not to a messed-up query or a hardware or network problem?
To hear everyone going on so much, you'd think that you couldn't even run a web site with it.
Obviously that's not the case, so a LOT of the complaining is just nonsense, same as the vi vs emacs jihads.
You can create a temporary table, fill it up with rows of data and:
1) INSERT rows not existing from temporary table
2) UPDATE from temporary table unless INSERT affected all rows
Ensure you drop temporary table at last.
If you suspect UPDATE is necessary, you may do #2 first to save on the number of updated rows.
If you supect UPDATE is not necessary, do #1 first like shown above. If you're paranoid, you may raise exception if UPDATE becomes necessary.
You may find variations which may be more efficient or simpler, but this works for me at least.
It may not be native support, and not fully optimized regarding the last update in some situations.
However, it's incredibly fast because it's using memory to cache the processing, and then sending everything off to the DB in bulk, saving on I/O and locking mechanisms.
I've got performance from this comparable to the most aggressive nosql database solutions, with the benefits of RDBMS intact.
I've switched to Postgres and am not looking back at mysql. The default install even failed the second time, which made me go to Postgres and be done with it.
Temporary tables give alot of possibilities to speed up and perform bulk-processing directly with the DB.
I'm surprised it's not used very much. Postgres has been a pleasant surprise as well, coming from an Oracle-laden background.
Why?
Really, why?
"Oh don't use mysql Oracle is evil blah blah blah do it this way instead even if it takes 4x as much code".
Yes, Oracle has done some stupid things. If you have forgotten, so had Sun. It's amazing how selective our memories have become - Sun is now seen as a candidate for canonization. Sheesh!
For now, there's no reason to switch. Maybe some day in the future, but for now mysql does what I want^Wneed.
It's a database, not the second coming... but from the hostility around it lately, you'd think it was my666sql.
If we refuse en mass to engage with Oracle, they have no reason whatsoever to even try to work with the F/LOSS community. Is that what everyone wants?
that's because it isn't needed, the equivalent operations can be done in any SQL compliant database (or for that matter in ISAM and VSAM systems too)
you're wanting to use a less robust dbms because of your laziness.
Don't be silly. Sure, there are other ways to do it, but why should I when it "just works" and is easy to explain to others?
I don't need 100% sql compliance. I need something that does certain things well. Sorry, but postgresql lags in that area.
You can try to turn this into another vi vs emacs war, but I'm just not interested. I'll continue to use the right too for the job, based on the features *I* need, not some ideological nonsense.
As I pointed out, this is something that is so OBVIOUS in retrospect that it's a wonder other database products haven't gotten around to implementing it.
I know it's fashionable to rag on Oracle nowadays, but we've seen this with Sun as well - where one hand doesn't know exactly what the other is doing, or parts act in conflict.
MySQL has the features I want, including ON DUPLICATE KEY. When pgsql has it, I'll certainly look at it, but unless things change, why bother?
Until PostgreSQL gets ON DUPLICATE KEY support, it's off the table (pardon the pun). ON DUPLICATE KEY is just so handy, and solves so many problems, that it's amazing most people aren't using it.
And no, creating a function to handle it as an exception is not a real solution.
And copyright notices appear in the linux kernel as well. As long as you comply with the copyright holders license, what's the problem? In the case of BSD code, you can use it in commercial closed-source programs.
The Regents reserve all their rights, then make it available under the BSD license - in other words, it's not public domain. You have to include their copyright notice, and you can't claim YOU wrote the code. That's about it.
Umm... I don't think there's a comment in this thread that says that. What I did say was that someone with diabetes could well end up in better health because they not only are more inclined to see a doctor on a regular basis, but also because diabetes might be the push they need to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
For example, we have no choice but to learn what's in our food, to avoid HFCS, to get more exercise, to avoid preventable diseases such as smoking, etc.
Of course, since Type 2 is usually later in life than Type 1, people with Type 2 generally don't get that "incentive" as early, so they have more of a chance to do other damage, such as by smoking, so then they have to deal with two issues at once.
The BSD license allows anyone, including Microsoft, to use BSD code.
Some of the files SCO claimed were infringing turned out to be BSD code, and as such, entirely okay (SCO couldn't claim rights to BSD code because of the Regents of the U of C vs AT&T case).
A lot of the depression is caused by the brain no longer being on a permanent sugar high. The only way to combat that is to get the endorphins going - in other words, contact with other people and exercise. Get a dog and walk it. Get out. Do stuff. Don't have your own personal pity party - or if you must, make it 10 minutes. Depression is nasty, in part because we don't talk about it, and we don't teach people how to deal with it.
Diabetes is treatable in theory, but in practice, it's a huge burden that your system and your psyche was never designed to cope with. Sooner or later, it'll do damage.
It was 35 years ago this year that the whole family went to the local children's hospital for screening, and I and half my sisters have Type 1. My psyche is doing just fine, thank you. It changed virtually nothing.
So I've got to jab a needle into myself when I eat. Big deal - it's a LOT better than having to go to the bathroom several times a night. That's pretty much the only thing that's changed. I eat what I want - I just don't load up on junk calories, and I would be avoiding HFCS anyway, so there's no change there.
We have a "dead pool" in our family - I'm expected to outlive at least three of my younger sisters, two of which *don't* have Type 1, simply because I never smoked, and I've never been a couch potato.
So yes, diabetics can certainly have a better quality of life than non-diabetics if the disease gives them the incentive to do something about it.
And yes, eventually there will be damage. And that sucks. Maybe one day I will go blind, or my kidneys fail, or something else. If and when that happens, as long as it doesn't kill me or damage my brain, I'll deal with it, just like everything else in life. I've been through far worse, and I still enjoy life. Besides, what other rational choice is there?
People who change their lifestyle after finding out they have diabetes have every reason to do better than their peers who continue to live a sedentary, fat-of-the-land, puffing-like-a-chimney lifestyle.
So while you might not be as good as you could be (and as the years pile on, who is, really?), you'll still be better in the long run than the "competition" who have let themselves go to seed.
Besides, what's the alternative? To give up? You can do that - but it sucks.
I've been doing this for almost 3 decades, and it's one of the reasons I don't bother with the basal injection - I learned that the problems outweigh the benefits, and frankly, I don't need them, My weight is right on target, I get LOTS of exercise morning and evening, and taking rapid-acting insulin at meals works. So what if my blood sugar ranges a bit lower and a bit higher than the ideal - as long as it's "good enough", what's the problem? That it's not always fixed at one number? So what?
And it's not the end of the world if you forget your insulin for a meal or two - you won't die if you're in good health. (Now if you're NOT in good health, that's another story).
You don't need perfect control, just "good enough" so that you avoid the complications of high blood sugar and insulin overdoses. Remember, people on a tight control regime have 3x the insulin reactions, and those reactions cause brain damage. Brain damage is cumulative. They used to purposefully put people into insulin shock as an alternative to electro-convulsive therapy for a reason - it can permanently alter^Wdamage the brain. Going low two or three times a wee will, over the long term, have side effects, same as chronic binge drinking will. It's called hypoglycemic diabetic dementia for a reason,
and it's the dirty little secret you won't hear anyone talk about when it comes to the risks of too-tight control.
Slashdot Mirror
Good for you. As a Bank of America customer, I'm transferring more money over to them because they are willing to stand up to a bully who is in receipt of a stolen hard drive and trying to damage the organization.
Do you have any proof the hard drive in question was stolen?
It may be an exec's personal laptop hard drive, and when he got fired, he sent it in.
As for "trying to damage the organization, BofA doesn't need any help with that. They have that one covered all by themselves.
Apparently, it's stuff that makes the current revelations look like weak beer.
My guess? The story behind the Kennedy assassinations.
Why? Because it has to be something that's been around for a while, not recent; it has to be something that people want to know about; it has to be something controversial; and it has to have connections with a lot of the "dirty tricks" that have been going on for decades.
All bad laws do is lower respect for all laws. Here's the solution:
It would cut down on excess verbiage, legalese, and get some outdated laws off the books.
First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.
Treatable does not mean curable, even though in many cases, people return to normal blood sugar levels without medication when lose the excess weight and eat properly.
Also, someone doing everything right even with diabetes will live longer than the people around them who do not take care of themselves. Diabetes is not a "premature death sentence". Sure, people with type 2 diabetes die younger - the majority are paying the price for decades of carrying all that extra weight around. Obesity in and of itself is a significant risk factor. Type 2 diabetes is a marker.
And you'll have to agree that people who receive medical attention on a regular basis do better than those who don't - and that diabetics generally see a doctor more often. AND they get a lot more advice about healthy lifestyles, and those who follow that advice are more likely to be living a better lifestyle than their peers. So there's no reason to believe that they would do worse, since diabetes itself is treatable.
Example on my paternal side - my 87-year-old aunt. Type 2 diabetes. Doesn't smoke. A couple of uncles on the same side of the family, within a few years of that age, also don't smoke, and one also has type 2. Their siblings who smoked? All dead, decades ago.
Example on the maternal side - everyone who didn't smoke made it at least to their '70's. Smokers? Nowhere near it.
Now most of these people smoked at one point in their lives. Some gave it up after a good health scare, some didn't. The ones who didn't are dead. The ones who did are alive, because they adopted a healthier lifestyle, and received more medical attention.
To expect otherwise, for a disease that is as easily treated as diabetes, is a bit perverse. To claim otherwise is to actively discourage people from taking the steps they need to take to live longer lives.
Plan for things to fail, and when they do, you won't be in such a panic.
As for:
on all likely relevant platforms, processes hold resources, not threads. So killing a thread doesn't do anything to help with resource management and/or reclamation.
The open group disagrees
The pthread_detach() function shall indicate to the implementation that storage for the thread thread can be reclaimed when that thread terminates. If thread has not terminated, pthread_detach() shall not cause it to terminate. The effect of multiple pthread_detach() calls on the same target thread is unspecified.
So does the Comp Sci department at Temple U pthread_detatch
You can mark for deletion and reclaim the storage and other resources associated with a thread (of course, after it has terminated executing) with the command:
#include
int pthread_detach(pthread_t thread);
This command will not terminate a thread that is executing, only indicating that we want to reclaim automatically its storage when it terminates execution. Other ways of reclaiming the resources of a thread are:
So does the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory pthread_exit() is the way to claim thread-local data.
Regardless of the method of thread termination, any cancellation
cleanup handlers that have been pushed and not yet popped are executed,
and the destructors for any existing thread-specific data are executed.
Normally, you also write clean-up routines for closing file handles, freeing up any manualy malloc'd memory and returning it to the arena, etc.
And Apple here
Because POSIX creates threads as joinable by default, this example changes the thread’s attributes to create a detached thread. Marking the thread as detached gives the system a chance to reclaim the resources for that thread immediately when it exits.
and even the Aussies at Cardiff U agree pthread_destroy() that you can free up all memory allocated, so as long as you clean up the stuff YOU allocated, and allow the library to free up the stuff allocated at thread creation and initialization.
So, what relevant platforms don't support pthreads?
Washington, DC, fits both.
Additionally, every city in Puerto Rico qualifies as a US-owned city that is not in a state. (Puerto Rico is one of several unincorporated US territories).
There are also other U.S .territories, many with cities or towns, and some with capitals, that are not part of a state.
Sure, people tend to overlook the territories, but Washington?
switched to Postgres because MySQL lacks deferred foreign key constraints. Real world example: Model a city<-->state relationship where every city must have a state. Now, require that every state have a capital city. Now, enable foreign key constraints. Oops, we just broke MySQL.
What's the matter, did you fail geography? The example given was just plain wrong. Not every American city has a state, and not every capital has a state, not even in the Lower 48.
Looks like Canadians know more about American geography than Americans.
-- Barbie
A decent DBMS will _not_ be affected by network or hardware problems.
So your "decent DBMS" can magically answer remote queries without a network connection? Or read from failed storage?
Quick, patent it and you could be next year's TIME Person of the Year. They're into fiction now, you know.
Just skimming all your posts, if you're not a troll, god help you. Or rather any poor company that lets you touch their code. You shouldn't be allowed to touch any software with a 10 foot stick.
Here, let me give you a clue. If you're using a stick to write software, you're doing it wrong :-)
I started on MySQL, but switched to Postgres because MySQL lacks deferred foreign key constraints. Real world example: Model a city<-->state relationship where every city must have a state. Now, require that every state have a capital city. Now, enable foreign key constraints. Oops, we just broke MySQL.
Just a quick observation: Your model is already broken. Even in the U.S., not every city has a state, and neither does every capital.
-- Barbie
You think you're smarter than the people working on PostgreSQL, Oracle DB, and other databases (SQL relational or otherwise) known for their ACID properties?
You think writing your own server will provide 100% data integrity?
First, if I wouldn't need to implement all the features - just the ones I want, the job would be a lot simpler.
And yes, I *have* written multi-threaded servers - in c - and they run for months at a time without losing one byte of memory, and without having to kill off threads to reclaim memory lost from leaks.
So yes, if I had to, and someone was willing to pay for it, I could write a server to do a specific job, which is not the same as writing a general-purpose rdbms.
But that's neither here nor there - mysql is good enough for many tasks, so I use it.
To hear everyone going on so much, you'd think that you couldn't even run a web site with it.
Obviously that's not the case, so a LOT of the complaining is just nonsense, same as the vi vs emacs jihads.
-- Barbie
You can create a temporary table, fill it up with rows of data and: 1) INSERT rows not existing from temporary table 2) UPDATE from temporary table unless INSERT affected all rows Ensure you drop temporary table at last.
If you suspect UPDATE is necessary, you may do #2 first to save on the number of updated rows. If you supect UPDATE is not necessary, do #1 first like shown above. If you're paranoid, you may raise exception if UPDATE becomes necessary. You may find variations which may be more efficient or simpler, but this works for me at least.
It may not be native support, and not fully optimized regarding the last update in some situations. However, it's incredibly fast because it's using memory to cache the processing, and then sending everything off to the DB in bulk, saving on I/O and locking mechanisms. I've got performance from this comparable to the most aggressive nosql database solutions, with the benefits of RDBMS intact.
I've switched to Postgres and am not looking back at mysql. The default install even failed the second time, which made me go to Postgres and be done with it.
Temporary tables give alot of possibilities to speed up and perform bulk-processing directly with the DB. I'm surprised it's not used very much. Postgres has been a pleasant surprise as well, coming from an Oracle-laden background.
Why?
Really, why?
"Oh don't use mysql Oracle is evil blah blah blah do it this way instead even if it takes 4x as much code".
Yes, Oracle has done some stupid things. If you have forgotten, so had Sun. It's amazing how selective our memories have become - Sun is now seen as a candidate for canonization. Sheesh!
For now, there's no reason to switch. Maybe some day in the future, but for now mysql does what I want^Wneed.
It's a database, not the second coming ... but from the hostility around it lately, you'd think it was my666sql.
If we refuse en mass to engage with Oracle, they have no reason whatsoever to even try to work with the F/LOSS community. Is that what everyone wants?
-- Barbie
If I absolutely needed 100% data integrity, I'd write my own server. And I certainly wouldn't use SQL.
that's because it isn't needed, the equivalent operations can be done in any SQL compliant database (or for that matter in ISAM and VSAM systems too)
you're wanting to use a less robust dbms because of your laziness.
Don't be silly. Sure, there are other ways to do it, but why should I when it "just works" and is easy to explain to others?
I don't need 100% sql compliance. I need something that does certain things well. Sorry, but postgresql lags in that area.
You can try to turn this into another vi vs emacs war, but I'm just not interested. I'll continue to use the right too for the job, based on the features *I* need, not some ideological nonsense.
-- Barbie
I know it's fashionable to rag on Oracle nowadays, but we've seen this with Sun as well - where one hand doesn't know exactly what the other is doing, or parts act in conflict.
MySQL has the features I want, including ON DUPLICATE KEY. When pgsql has it, I'll certainly look at it, but unless things change, why bother?
-- Barbie
And no, creating a function to handle it as an exception is not a real solution.
-- Barbie
The Regents reserve all their rights, then make it available under the BSD license - in other words, it's not public domain. You have to include their copyright notice, and you can't claim YOU wrote the code. That's about it.
For example, we have no choice but to learn what's in our food, to avoid HFCS, to get more exercise, to avoid preventable diseases such as smoking, etc.
Of course, since Type 2 is usually later in life than Type 1, people with Type 2 generally don't get that "incentive" as early, so they have more of a chance to do other damage, such as by smoking, so then they have to deal with two issues at once.
-- Barbie
Care to back that statement up with evidence or are you spreading FUD?
That Microsoft has BSD code? Run ftp from the command line in Windows.
Anyone can use BSD code, even for closed-source commercial purposes.
Some of the files SCO claimed were infringing turned out to be BSD code, and as such, entirely okay (SCO couldn't claim rights to BSD code because of the Regents of the U of C vs AT&T case).
-- Barbie
Diabetes is treatable in theory, but in practice, it's a huge burden that your system and your psyche was never designed to cope with. Sooner or later, it'll do damage.
It was 35 years ago this year that the whole family went to the local children's hospital for screening, and I and half my sisters have Type 1. My psyche is doing just fine, thank you. It changed virtually nothing.
So I've got to jab a needle into myself when I eat. Big deal - it's a LOT better than having to go to the bathroom several times a night. That's pretty much the only thing that's changed. I eat what I want - I just don't load up on junk calories, and I would be avoiding HFCS anyway, so there's no change there.
We have a "dead pool" in our family - I'm expected to outlive at least three of my younger sisters, two of which *don't* have Type 1, simply because I never smoked, and I've never been a couch potato.
So yes, diabetics can certainly have a better quality of life than non-diabetics if the disease gives them the incentive to do something about it.
And yes, eventually there will be damage. And that sucks. Maybe one day I will go blind, or my kidneys fail, or something else. If and when that happens, as long as it doesn't kill me or damage my brain, I'll deal with it, just like everything else in life. I've been through far worse, and I still enjoy life. Besides, what other rational choice is there?
-- Barbie
So while you might not be as good as you could be (and as the years pile on, who is, really?), you'll still be better in the long run than the "competition" who have let themselves go to seed.
Besides, what's the alternative? To give up? You can do that - but it sucks.
And it's not the end of the world if you forget your insulin for a meal or two - you won't die if you're in good health. (Now if you're NOT in good health, that's another story).
You don't need perfect control, just "good enough" so that you avoid the complications of high blood sugar and insulin overdoses. Remember, people on a tight control regime have 3x the insulin reactions, and those reactions cause brain damage. Brain damage is cumulative. They used to purposefully put people into insulin shock as an alternative to electro-convulsive therapy for a reason - it can permanently alter^Wdamage the brain. Going low two or three times a wee will, over the long term, have side effects, same as chronic binge drinking will. It's called hypoglycemic diabetic dementia for a reason, and it's the dirty little secret you won't hear anyone talk about when it comes to the risks of too-tight control.
http://bitcoin2cash.com/
The Mt.Gox exchange is bogus - it's based on so few transactions as to make no sense.