Subject: scientific way to improve vision

From: See 20/20 w/out Surgery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:51:33 -0700

Perfect Vision w/out Glasses

----- Begin Alert -----

- Enjoy 20/20 vision without having to rely on glasses or contacts
- Fix what's actually ruining your vision

Restore your vision, naturally and permanently.

View Discovery -> http://www.pastwaxodd.com/vision/restoration/discovery.index

If glasses are worn continuously over time the poor vision will generally become worse. 
Essentially what glasses do is lock the eyes into their refractive state and in order
to see through your lenses you have to maintain the poor vision that the lenses 
are designed to correct.

View Patient Testimonials Below:
/ http://www.pastwaxodd.com/vision/restoration/discovery.index

----- End Alert -----

-
-
-
To stop further health alerts - visit http://www.pastwaxodd.com/wtryj/54w/h656uj/ae.ryi75 - or write to 
Alert Center Notifications one four zero zero South Jama - Goddard, KS 67052
-
-
Isn't this missing the WHERE clause in the question? I don't have a
server on this system to test it but wouldn't you be able to add that
to the ON like: ON Table.id = other_table.id AND other_table.sql='cool'?
Or am I misinterpreting the question?o iterate over the INNER JOIN.
As such the ON functions as your WHERE clause and the 
skips records that are not found in the JOINed table. Adding a 
clause would limit the result set of the JOINed table as well.
@Roger Ray what version of MySQL and what was your query, as this 
DOES infact function as stated.  Never mind, I keep coming here 
only to find my own answers.  this question is about Microsoft SQL 
 Server. Unfortunately, the syntax between various SQL implementations 
can vary. I have the same question in MySQL. It would be great if someone 
knows how to implement it to  do I 
use an alias in set? update table set a.col1 = b.col2 from table a 
inner join table2 b on a.id = b.id;   ThinkCode Jan 20 at 23:08What
I think doesn't really matter. I'm just making other people aware of this
 fact since the tests require positive hexadecimal string literals to be 
 validated as a number (and as an aside, I needed a function to validate
  negative string hexadecimals as a number). (And yes, I do understand 
  that negative hexadecimal string literals are not coerced into numbers by 
  vanilla JS either.) Sometimes when a function is so short, it becomes 
  unreadable, but this maintains its readability while being eleganly terse.
  Thank you. wrapper around parseFloat which does the actual job and has 
been since ever the right way of converting to numbers. I don't see what's
the big deal. whether the entire string is a valid number, be careful. 
Strings containing extraneous whitespace will return true: "1234 " (space 
as last character)  is even better !isNaN(+val) && isFinite(val). You can
check out my reply below for details. I believe it checks for 0.4 when you
pass 3.,.4 in. No, I don't believe so. JavaScript functions are variadic, 
and arguments are separated by commas. The first argument is mapped onto
the n variable. this beats vanilla parseFloat(): 1. parseFloat() would 
convert non-number strings beginning with numbers like "12 green bottles,
sitting on a wall" to 12 and would return true. This returns false. 2.
The isNaN() wrapper means "0" or "-1" return true - without it, these 
alid numbers would evaluate as false. It beats vanilla isFinite() because 
that would return