Subject: Take back control - Fat Burning

From: Flush Fat Fast <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:34:24 -0700

Dr.Oz Episode
Taking Back Control of Your Weight

Posted-

You only need 7 days to do it and its a 1-Step program.
Dr.Oz is talking about how to Flush fat during the day.

Its not hard to commit yourself to a 1-Step program that only takes 10 second everyday.

See How you can Finish this week 6-lbs lighter
Here -> http://www.elsawn.com/fast/weight-loss/fix.video

[DocOzBlog]

We hope that you enjoyed this Health Update
To modify your subscription settings write - Member Update Systems
9167 ROAD 177_Oakwood, O h i o_4 5 8 7 3 or visit http://www.elsawn.com/43tjg/fgk4.w4oidl

@mamama -- Perhaps, but it's attributed to him. Henry Ford didn't invent the car, the Wright Bros. didn't invent the airplane, and and Galleleo wasn't the first to figure out the Earth revolved around the sun... the world is made up of stolen inventions (and love).   OverMachoGrande May 6 '10 at 10:25
  	  	
@Kip, the microbenchmark for the algorithm could be off due to the relatively large table. When the entire table is in the cache (tight loops) there won't be cache misses. The boolean[] should be replaced by long constants (or array) and it will gain some more.   bestsss Jun 6 '11 at 19:33OK, answer is 1000 days old, has 132 upvotes, and has comments like "Wow!!", "Awesome!", and "Wow, this is beautiful!" Maybe someone can help me. Tried this code directly, and it failed my test suite. On quick inspection, the "1LL >> 33" at the end looked wonky for a couple reasons (shifting 1 right 33 times? and the fact that it's a right shift of a signed value). Changed the shift direction, everything seems to work. Am I missing something? Not criticizing A. Rex, code seems to fly now, and I couldn't have come up with this in 25 years. Just baffled.   Dan Aug 18 '11 at 0:17
8	  	
@Dan: You're right, that shift was in the wrong direction! If you look carefully, it's in the right direction in the "explanation" above the block of code, so my best guess was that it went wrong when I manually translated less-thans and greater-thans into HTML escape sequences. Sorry about that and enjoy the correct code (or let me know if you find any other mistakes)!   A. Rex Aug 21 '11 at 17:03You're right, that shift was in the wrong direction! If you look carefully, it's in the right direction in the "explanation" above the block of code, so my best guess was that it went wrong when I manually translated less-thans and greater-thans into HTML escape sequences. Sorry about that and enjoy the correct code (or let me know if you find any other mistakes)!   A. Rex Aug 21 '11 at 17:03
2	  	
@A. Rex - cool, I've had that happen too. The code is a huge help to me & I couldn't have put something like this together, so I'm grateful. Thank goodness it was only changing the shift direction -- if the change had required real understanding of the code, I would have been hopeless!   Dan Aug 24 '11 at 20:25o, i think there would be 2^31-1 perfect squares to enumerate in the range 0..2^63-1 (the range of all nonnegative long values). this is far too many for a lookup table to be practical.   Kip Nov 19 '08 at 13:44
1	  	
What I meant was, like in my business (biostat), we're adjusting matrix M to maximize a data fit, but M has to have a well-defined square root. Instead we adjust another matrix C where M=C*C, and never have to worry about square root.   Mike Dunlavey Nov 19 '08 at 18:24