Many people have trouble with javascript being classless. A lot of people associate objects with classes, and are confused by an object oriented language without them.

undefined

You seem to be misinformed.

=== is true if both the type and value match (it will not do type conversion.)

In my case I had 6 AP credits with a score of 4 or 5 (including CS), the college said "choose two". They were also kind enough to clarify that classes that could be tested out of also counted towards this limit.

I could see not taking it for courses in your major, but they seemed not to want students skipping anything if they could prevent it. I suppose they wanted to make money from the classes, but not accepting them makes the entire AP thing a waste of time.

He may have meant checking ZF or something, but I am guessing not.

In any case smaller data size does take less time to process for many instructions, for instance a 32 bit DIV is faster than doing so on 64-bits, even on a 64-bit processor (it takes about a third the time.)

  If you are packing bits it can also save time in transferring from memory (although you need enough bits to make it worthwhile.)

Carbohydrates are not digested at a rate even close to sugar.

Runners will commonly eat a lot of carbohydrates over the couple of days leading up to a race for this reason. It provides long term energy which can be used somewhat rapidly if necessary. I do not get a sugar high when carb loading.

Something like white bread may be different, but I barely consider that food. If the carbohydrates you are eating are sweetened with a ton of fructose that could cause you problems as well.

They do provide a lot of energy for the amount you eat, which is highly useful unless you have problems regulating your calorie intake. If your goal is to eat as much as possible they are probably not a good choice.

Meat only diets are very bad for you, you may want to get your cholesterol checked if you have been on one for a while.

You will not metabolize carbon dioxide from the air, and nitrogen is inert.

Breathing converts oxygen and carbon into carbon dioxide, therefore breathing should actually make you lose weight.

Water may add to weight, but you will keep to a fairly narrow range of water content if you want to survive.

It is that simple, humans are not overunity devices.

How you go about accomplishing it can get complex, various feedback effects complicate what you expend or gain energy wise, and you still need certain substances in your diet in enough quantity to avoid nutritional deficiencies, but you will lose weight if you gain less energy from food than you expend.

Eating as you did in your 20s when you are in your 40s is highly inadvisable. You want to tailor your consumption to match current energy expenditure, not what you were expending 20 years ago.

As you age your dietary needs will change, but you can still find a balance. Energy expenditure through exercise should not change much if it is consistent, but the amount of energy needed for other functions will. If nothing else your cell division rate drops as you age, and eventually goes to nearly zero.

This means you should no longer be eating enough to cover that energy expenditure, as you are no longer expending it. This is going to be less noticeable if you get substantial exercise, as it is a smaller fraction of your energy use.

Short of extremely rare hormone disorders or crippling physical debilities you should be able to control your weight without too much effort, even as you get older.

Hand grenades, Machine guns, C4, RPGs: Yes

Small Pox, Nuclear missiles: No (and I would rather governments did not have these either, although depending upon how you read it this may actually require an amendment to make the restriction constitutional... which would be a good idea if we were to start allowing everything else.)

I would also say we should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and conventional missiles (assuming a private citizen can afford any of those.)

My reading of the second amendment is that the primary thing it does is tell us the form of military we are to have. This would be a militia, not a standing army.

Keep in mind that private citizens owned cannon when that was written. I do believe it allows a private citizen in the US to own military hardware, and it is very much infringed right now.

The problem with lead in gasoline is that you combust it, and the lead gets into the air. Once in the air it can not only be inhaled, but can accumulate in various animals and plants which we eat.

Lead paint mostly stays where it is unless it chips or flakes and someone eats it. In the US you are required to sign a waiver before moving in if the residence contains lead paint. It is mostly safe if there are no children present, or the paint is in good condition.

The mere fact that uncontrolled influences are present makes what the op wrote fail as a disproof, it does not actually matter what they are. If you cannot control all factors such that a single example blows the argument, disproof by counterexample does not work. This makes it mostly useful in math, and less so in the real world.

As the saying goes, correlation is not causation. A lot of people have real difficulty with this, especially when the correlation supports the argument they are trying to make, but it remains true regardless.

You could say the available information provides evidence that gun ownership does not cause increased crime, which would be true. It is however very much possible that it does increase violent crime, and something else is responsible for the decline.

If you need a list of possible influences we can go with better education, reduced environmental contaminants (someone mentioned lead specifically), the rise of easy access to information (the internet), deterrent through harsher penalties (which I do not personally believe helps), economic conditions, etc.

There are rather a lot of things which would influence the crime rate and are not accounted for in a simple crime vs gun ownership chart. In this case nobody will be proving or disproving it either way, it is simply too messy to be subject to this kind of analysis.

The reason so many people are coming down on Jane's post is that it redirects the argument in a very misguided (or underhanded) way. A logical process is given with an example where it works correctly, then applied to a situation where it does not.

X can inflate Y while Z suppresses Y, showing a downward trend in Y overall even though X is causing Y to increase over what it would be absent X.

The argument Jane used is not correct, as it ignores all other factors. The example given is correct and logical, but is not an acceptable method to disprove a statistical trend.

In order to do this you would need to be able to control for all other factors which could influence the result.

In the example this is easy, as they can lock the dog up and easily disprove the theory that the dog is the cause. In the case of correlation between gun ownership and violence, appropriate controls which would allow the correlation to be disproved in this way are not possible.

That said, I do prefer to live in an armed society (even though I do not personally own a gun.)

Not saying it is the best way, but...

There are many non-profit (and some for profit) standards organizations which solve similar problems right now, probably the most similar being something like ARIN and the other regional IP registries.

Stopping someone from transmitting would be more difficult than stopping someone from advertising addresses belonging to someone else, but it could probably be done (I am envisioning a relationship with the power company, who shuts you off for breach of your terms of service.)

So does a "toll" you pay to a random armed group who sets up on a road in a failed state.

Being forced to buy peace and appeasement due to a threat of violence is never a good thing, the best you could really say is that taxes are applied more evenly, and some of the money goes to those in need.

Pensions in particular are a huge problem, a lot of these systems made the assumption that population growth and productivity would keep going up. This did not happen, and it would be more onerous to pay for this now than when it was initially promised.

While it is unfair for government to promise they will pay a pension and not do so, it is at least as unfair to ask a generation to pay for decisions which were made and services which were rendered before they were born.

Many cities will have very real problems paying pensions unless the federal government simply starts printing money and handing it to them. I am expecting a federal law some time in the next 20 years which forces pensions to be fully funded each year as they are owed, but that will be after it blows up.