Leaks Happen! But Period Panties Are Your Secret Weapon (Seriously!)

collectively solve a local environ-mental problem

allows fool-proof screen recording via the command line

Have you tried asking gmail why THEY fail your DKIM signature?

A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof.

According to the pragma-dialectical theory of vanEemeren and Grootendorst, Blair noted, "sufficiency is a function of appropriatelymeeting the critics' challenges to premises and inferences" (p. 3 32) . Blair alsonoted that this means that an argument can rightly be said to be sufficient for itsconclusion in this sense when it meets its burden of proof3 relying on "what maybe presumed without or accepted without further question" (p. 333)

According to this type of analysis, each of the types of argumentation modelled will have a distinctive argumentation scheme (structure, form) that allows itto function as a way of making a point or shifting a burden of proof in a dialogue.

An augmentation on arc (i, j) might, however,create an additional arc (j, i) with rji > 0 and therefore also create an additionalinequality d(j) ~ d(i) + 1 that the distanceJabels must satisfy.

Proof

‖Ax‖2 = (Ax)>(Ax) = x>A>Ax = x>Ix = x>x = ‖x‖2

Blockchains address this problem in two ways. First, they enforce a complete ordering on all transactions, which generates a tree of alternative views of history. Second, they define canon for histories, along with a fork-choice rule that selects the canonical branch from the tree of histories.

It's always a good idea to avoid things like 'both', since it's not future-proof — if we decided we wanted to support method overrides via headers, for example (which is sometimes used to get around firewalls that disallow non-GET/POST requests), then 'both' would need to become 'all', which would be a breaking change.

“proof of stake” where the design literally becomes “he who has the gold makes the rules”.

POC vs MVP: What to Choose to Build a Great ProductDmitryCEOMVPHomeBlogEntrepreneurshipPOC vs MVP: What to Choose to Build a Great ProductPublishedNov 10, 2021UpdatedNov 11, 202115 min readWhen it comes to creating a new product or implementing a new feature, you need to test it first. The best way to do so is to check your idea with the appropriate steps. There are several software product stages: PoC, prototype, MVP, etc. What is the difference between proof of concept vs. MVP? Why are these stages essential? When should you build a Minimum Viable Product? This article focuses on two fundamental approaches that help test your idea quickly and create a successful solution.

If you want to understand why I’ve made these arguments, you first need to recognize that for decades, right-wing thinkers and judges have argued that policies that lead to racial inequities are “not racist” or are “race neutral.” That was the position of the conservative Supreme Court justices who recently upheld Arizona’s voting-restriction policies. Those who wish to conserve racial inequity want us to focus on intent—which is hard to prove—rather than the outcome of inequity, which is rather easy to prove.

Right now, we are building a concept proofing prototype using Anycable.

One day last August 2018, I stumbled upon an online petition that sparked my curiosity - We Want Serverless Ruby. At that time, none of the major cloud providers had first-class support for Ruby in their serverless products. There were ~1400 devs signing that petition, and I wondered if there was something about Ruby that made it unsuitable for FaaS. I decided to roll the sleeves and start building what would be the first PoC of faastRuby.

And just because a feature or idiom is commonly used does not mean you should use it either.

There are many ways to incorporate social proof on your pricing page, including the following: Case studies Reviews Testimonials

𝐵∪(⋂𝑖∈𝐼𝐴𝑖)=⋂𝑖∈𝐼𝐵∪𝐴𝑖B∪(⋂i∈IAi)=⋂i∈IB∪AiB \cup\left(\bigcap_{i \in I} A_{i}\right)=\bigcap_{i \in I} B \cup A_{i};

The more I think about this, the more I think that using the context API (for all the stores — page, preloading and session) is the most regret-proof approach, using the proposal above

This plugin was designed as a proof-of-concept for a feature that's destined for Rails 4. It has only been tested on Rails 3.2+, but may work on earlier versions as well.

Almost every social network of note had an early signature proof of work hurdle. For Facebook it was posting some witty text-based status update. For Instagram, it was posting an interesting square photo. For Vine, an entertaining 6-second video. For Twitter, it was writing an amusing bit of text of 140 characters or fewer. Pinterest? Pinning a compelling photo. You can likely derive the proof of work for other networks like Quora and Reddit and Twitch and so on. Successful social networks don't pose trick questions at the start, it’s usually clear what they want from you.

Whether this be true or not, I cannot prevail upon myself to become his accuser–and I think with good reason. If I made the matter public, I have no evidence but moral evidence to bring forward. I have not only no proof that he killed the two men at the door; I cannot even declare that he killed the third man inside–for I cannot say that my own eyes saw the deed committed

Ohhh, never thought of this hypothesis: that the act of getting drunk together might be a social technology that helps us verify the trustworthiness of others by inhibiting their higher cognitive functions and thus making it harder to consciously fake things.

he GDPR does notpreclude all incentives but the onus would be on the controller to demonstrate that consent was stillfreely given in allthe circumstances.

Controllers are free to develop methods to comply with this provision in a way that is fitting in theirdaily operations. At the same time, the duty to demonstrate that valid consent has been obtained bya controller, should not in itself lead to excessive amounts of additional data processing. This meansthat controllers should have enough data to show a link to the processing (to show consent wasobtained) but they shouldn’t be collecting any more information than necessary.

t is up to the controller to prove that valid consent was obtained from the data subject. The GDPRdoes not prescribe exactly how this must be done. However, the controller must be able to prove thata data subject in a given case has consented. As long as a data processing activity in question lasts, the

I am looking for indirect access via some sort of settings or confirmation, or proof that it is impossible.

In order to comply with privacy laws, especially the GDPR, companies need to store proof of consent so that they can demonstrate that consent was collected. These records must show: when consent was provided;who provided the consent;what their preferences were at the time of the collection;which legal or privacy notice they were presented with at the time of the consent collection;which consent collection form they were presented with at the time of the collection.

Because consent under the GDPR is such an important issue, it’s mandatory that you keep clear records and that you’re able to demonstrate that the user has given consent; should problems arise, the burden of proof lies with the data controller, so keeping accurate records is vital.

Keeping comprehensive records that include a user ID and the data submitted together with a timestamp. You also keep a copy of the version of the data-capture form and any other relevant documents in use on that date.

Furthermore, the consent-based regime creates an obligation to document that consent was lawfully given.

See a full history of user consents and data requests. Use the records to prove your compliance in case of an audit by data protection authorities.

These records should include a userid, timestamp, consent proof, record of the consenting action, and the legal documents available to the user at the time of consent, among other things.

A simple and timeless format Plain text is the simplest file format there is. It will always be accessible, by some kind of application, forever.

Future proofs your journal entries by saving them as plain text and organizing them as you go. This means you can read or create entries when you don’t have DayJournal.

The historian Anthony Grafton once observed, “text persuades, the notes prove.”14

he anti-relativists counter that the very notion of a “faultless” disagreement is incompatible with our common understanding of what it means to disagree. It is a hallmark of disagreement, as commonly understood, that the parties involved find fault with the other sides’ views.

If well-informed, honest and intelligent people are unable to resolve conflicts of opinion, we should, some relativists argue, accept that all parties to such disputes could be right and their conflicting positions have equal claims to truth, each according to their own perspective or point of view.

To take an example, moral relativism, according to this approach, is the claim that the truth or justification of beliefs with moral content is relative to specific moral codes. So the sentence “It is wrong to sell people as slaves” is elliptical for “It is wrong to sell people as slaves relative to the moral code of …”. Or alternatively, as Kusch (2010) formulates the idea on behalf of the relativist: “It is wrong-relative-to-the-moral-code-of-…” to sell people as slaves. The resulting sentence(s) turns out to be true, according to the relativist, depending on how we fill in the “…”. So, “It is wrong to sell people as slaves” comes out true relative to the moral code of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and false relative to the moral code of ancient Greece.

A second approach to defining relativism casts its net more widely by focusing primarily on what relativists deny. Defined negatively, relativism amounts to the rejection of a number of interconnected philosophical positions. Traditionally, relativism is contrasted with:

We would be left floundering in conflicting nonsensical schemes if we accepted all the views that we can't really disprove.

It evidently means only that the "burden of proof" lies with the accusers;-that he is not to be called on to prove his innocence, or to be dealt with as a criminal till he has done so; but that they arc to bring their charges against him, which if he can repel, he stands acquiltt!d.

flipped classroom model

DENNIS WEIS Co-author of Mass and Raw Muscle; former champion body builder and powerlifter. “…Serious Growth can’t help but take a bodybuilder into a 4th dimension of fresh new muscle growth.”

EDMUND ENOS, Ph.D. Associate professor of exercise science - Concordia University; leading authority on bodybuilding and strength training “…thanks to serious growth, America has again become a world leader in developing advanced bodybuilding and strength training programs.”

What bodybuilding professionals are saying about serious growth…

Tony Chillino – West Nyack, NY “I was skeptical at first, but I decided to go for it. The results are phenomenal. Serious Growth put 30 pounds of muscle on my frame. My strength jumped in all exercises. About 90 pounds was put on my bench, 70 on the military and back. My body went through changes that my peers couldn’t believe, they accused me of doing drugs, but I plainly said ‘never’. You’ll feel yourself growing and getting stronger during the duration of the Serious Growth training. Your body is brought to a new level of accomplishment. You’ve made my dreams come true, keep it up.”

Jared Jensen – Brigham, UT “I was ready to quit weight training but I decided to give this system a try. On the 3rd week my bench jumped 40 lbs. I was hooked. …I've seen guys in the gym who are using steroids. I get just as good gains as they do without killing myself. I couldn’t imagine working out without this program. Thanks Leo!”

Bill Becker – Mt. Morris, PA “The Bulgarian System is amazing. In just 3 weeks my bench press went from 245 lbs. to 280 lbs. I didn’t think a natural training program could deliver results like this. Thanks OTS.”

David Harper – Stone Mountain, GA “I have never been able to re-create the gains made by the use of anabolics and lifting extremely heavy weights, until now! …In just two months of dedication to this idea my maximum bench went from 260 pounds to 325 pounds which is just 15 pounds from when I was 19 and using anabolics. My body weight has gone from 195 to 225 and I seem to have less of that unwanted spare tire.”

Peter Giaardini – Age 16 New Rochelle, NY “I could literally feel my body growing. I started out a measly 140 lbs. with 14½ inch arms. Now I’m 175 lbs. With 17½ inch arms and growing. My bench press went from 160 lbs. max to 325 lbs. Thanks Leo.”

Mark Zollitsch – Newport Beach, CA “I’m training for the Olympics, and in just two weeks on the Bulgarian System, I added 50 lbs. to my bench. I used to hate doing pullups, now I’m doing five sets of twelve with a 15 lb. dumbbell hanging from my waist. This system is fantastic.”

B. Laswell – Age 40 – Texas “I've been bodybuilding since I was 14. I’ve always been a hardgainer, but after 90 days on the Bulgarian System, I’ve added 140 lbs. to my squad and 20 lbs. of weight without it going to my waist. The Bulgarian System is the best that I have ever used. I only wish I had your course a long time ago; it would have saved me years of slow progress.”

Eric Litster – Brigham City, UT “Thanks to OTS. In the last nine months I’ve added at least 100 pounds to my squat, seventy odd pounds to my bench, and 20 plus pounds to number of other movements. …And it gets better with every trip to the gym.”

Dr. Mark Radermacher – Age 35 Management Consultant – Heartford, WI “I had never seriously lifted weights before in my life, but I wanted a sculptured aesthetic looking physique. Since I started the Bulgarian System I’ve made on believable size and strength gains. I started off struggling with squats at 135 lbs. Now just 3½ months later, I’m using 300 lbs. My chest, legs, and shoulders have gotten so big that I’ve outgrown all my suits.”

Clyde Holland – Florence, AZ “Wow, the Burst program is awesome! It’s the best work out I've ever been exposed to. At the beginning I weighed 195 lbs. Now, I’m 217 lbs. and strong. I’ve been accused of using steroids. 12 weeks has added about 20 lbs. I have never seen anything which looked so wrong but is so right. I have a pile of muscle magazines and books written by Arnold, and others. None compares to this workout.”

Michael Pinheiro – Age 15 High School Student – Hanford, CA Michael came to me weighing only 99 pounds and bench pressing 85 pounds, and he had a sincere desire to get big and strong. I put him on the Bulgarian system, and in the short time he's been using it he's made the most impressive gains of any young guy I've ever seen. Michael now bench presses 205 pounds (up from 85–that's more than double) and front squats 215 pounds (up from one of the 125). He weighs in at 130 pounds (up from 99) and his body fat has increased by only 1.5%. That's an incredible ratio of fat-to-muscle gain.

Eric Poole – Age 33 Sales Manager – Visalia, CA Eric had only been working out sporadically off-and-on for a year. Nothing serious. Then he saw what I and some of my other clients had done with the Bulgarian system and he wanted to be a part of. When he began, he could only bench press 175 pounds for three reps maximum. Four weeks later, he was bench pressing 315 pounds! His squats went from 190 pounds (5 reps max) to 265 pounds.

Bob Pierce – Age 20 College football player – Tulare, CA Bob started this program weighing 234 pounds (his heaviest weight ever), but he desperately needed to gain more weight for his lineman position on the football team. He had already tried lots of other systems for putting on weight and muscle mass, but nothing seemed to work. What's more, he had been training for over 5 years, which means his body was near its peak–and that's why he was having trouble putting on lean meat. (Or so he thought.) I put him on the Bulgarian system and in only 10 weeks, Bob gained 20 pounds of new muscle, with no increase in body fat! His bench press went from 315 pounds to 415 pounds in only 10 weeks. His legs don't fit into his old blue jeans anymore, and his friends at the gym swear he must be on steroids. (He's not. I don't allow any of my clients to use steroids.)

I Tested It And It Works! I train really hard. Most athletes couldn't hold a candle to me. At 250 pounds and 5'10", I thought I was pretty darn developed. But when I return from the Eastern Bloc, I immediately put their methods to the test on my own body. And I'm happy (and embarrassed) to say that their training system runs rings around everything else I've tried here in the U.S. After just four months on their program, I pared 15 pounds of fat and replaced it with 20 pounds of rock-hard muscle. My neck size is now 20 inches and my arms are 20 ¾ inches. (And that's a cold measurement. What's more, I've never used a steroid in my life, and I don't allow my clients to either.) And I'm just the first example of how amazingly effective the SERIOUS GROWTH system is.

Literally hundreds of experiments were done over several years to determine what worked best and what didn't. They put their best scientists to work determining how the body builds strength, power, and large muscles.

Men, women, and sports teams throughout California come to me when they need to rapidly improve their strength, performance, endurance, or appearance.

Probably my most famous (though not best built) client is Hollywood film star Kevin Costner. Another client of Hollywood fame is Steve Ruether, Producer of Pretty Woman, Dirty Dancing, and other top motion pictures.

Over 40,000 hard-core bodybuilders already used this system with the most spectacular results I've ever seen. Many of the most respected professional athletes are raving about this training breakthrough

Probably my most famous (though not best built) client is Hollywood film star Kevin Costner. Another client of Hollywood fame is Steve Ruether, Producer of Pretty Woman, Dirty Dancing, and other top motion pictures.

mobile device

showing

the project drew on the addressee information from letters that are currently sealed

difficult simply from archival research

TEI

Kyle W. Bock

The final step of the project was the drafting of the site’s text, including analyses of what was learned from the visualizations.

RDF

Emory Finding Aids

EAD and TEI

take provide

more letters

large

each

dedications of the works

have

including Pat (SGML), Tamino (XML), and eXist (XML). The encoding has been migrated from TEI version P3 (SGML) to P4 (XML) and currently, P5.

Many of these drafts were held by Special Collections as typescripts or “Group sheets.

Special Collections Department

theManuscript

Seamus Heaney, Philip Hobsbaum, Michael Longley, Paul Muldoon, James Simmons, Ciaran Carson

Michael Allen

Arthur Terry

measuring

Well, this whole thing was cleared up by the logician Tarski, I guess, and some others, mayb e Russell or Peano. Anyhow, what you do is, you write down the axioms of your theory in a formal language with a given list of symb ols or alphab et. Then you write down the hyp othesis of your theorem in the same symb olism. Then you show that you can transform the hyp othesis step by step, using the rules of logic, till you get the conclusion. That's a pro of. Student : Really? That's amazing! I've taken elementary and ad- vanced calculus, basic algebra, and top ology, and I've never seen that done. I:M: : Oh, of course no one ever really do es it. It would take forever! You just show that you could do it, that's sucient.

e can think of no condemnation more damning than to say of a student, \He do esn't even know what a pro of is". Yet he is able to give no coherent explanation of what is meant by rigor, or what is required to make a pro of rigorous.

The duty of the Arguments is to attempt conclusive proofs.

A speech has two essential parts: statement and proof

when people think that what they have said cannot be refuted, they then think that they are bringing forward a "complete proof," meaning that the matter has now been demonstrated and completed (peperhasmeuou ); for the word perhas has the same meaning (of "end" or "boundary") as the word tekmarh in the ancient tongue.

[1356a] Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.

Then you must prove that the rhetorician is not a fool, and that rhetoric is an art and not a flattery