Letter I Want To Be A Dentist

CRISIS CRISIS ON PENALTIES FOR NOT SEND MAIL blind copies (Bcc)

In recent days I received some emails from friends, forwarded in turn to other people, in which a certain alarmist tone is to inform us so that we care, as the English Agency for Data Protection is putting sanctions for not using the blind copy (BCC). These emails say things like "Eye of the data": There is already a statement by forwarding email without removing previous data from other users. Anything goes, in order to raise money from citizens. Fines for sending mail without BCC. € 600 fine for not using the BCC. Citizens have been fined € 600 for failing to delete addresses to forward mail.

Who produces and disseminates this information (which, after flowing through the network through massive forwards do citizens of good faith), you probably do not know or knows little about the law and more specifically the Organic Law and Data Protection Regulations. Therefore, it is good that lawyers intervene to qualify, define and put in place is wrong information.

is true that the English Agency for Data Protection means that email address is personal data and on a few occasions, been punished individuals for sending emails without using the BCC. But the fact remains that the sanction applied to those citizens not by the use of mail in the domestic sphere, but because it was use in professional or business activities and in these cases, which applies the Law on Data Protection . The AEPD passed these people saying that when the data we have in our personal agendas, personal leave this area and are used for professional or business purposes, we would find ourselves incardinated data processing in the scope of the Data Protection Act.

The PDPA Article 2.2. referred to the scope of it, says Tasat: This Law shall not apply to files maintained by individuals in the pursuit of purely personal or household activities . So when I, not professionally, but from my house, as a private person, sending emails to my personal contacts, but do not use the Bcc, never, under any circumstances, I may be sanctioned by the AEPD since these activities fall in the scope of the Data Protection Act. In the same line pronounce Directive 95/46/EC, which states that should be excluded from the application of the Act: "the processing of data carried by an individual in the exercise of purely personal or household activities, such as correspondence and the keeping a code of directions. "

Therefore, if I as an individual (not professionally) I have an electronic file with all the addresses of my friends, which as all know we use a PC, although this activity technically be considered a data processing under Article 2.2 of the Data Protection Act quoted above, in any way will be subject to the scope thereof. What matters to the law, which technically is not being performed data processing, but such treatment is taking place in an exclusively domestic or personal.

Thus, we must be clear that these shipments can be made to the e-mail address we have on our friends, in a strictly personal, will not be sanctioned by the AEPD. Another thing different is that it is always advisable to make submissions preserving the identity of our contacts through the use of the CCO and also that, when we will forward these emails, let us try to delete all e-mail addresses appear on them and for two very important reasons:

One because we have to be respectful to those people we have included in our contacts with those who may not like to give out your address to others. We must be careful not to reveal his identity. Another, because if we do not take these precautions, we will facilitate this bad practice that is spam and will not be contributing to their elimination.

Tajima Embroiderymac Os

THROWN BY NO CARE FOR YOUR REPUTATION ON FACEBOOK VIRTUAL

am writing with some regularity on the risks generated Facebook because of the bad habits that we use. We care very little for the reputation we leave virtual in the network, we sometimes behave as genuine exhibitionists , do not put measures so we will not supplant the personality , and finally, in many cases, we have to suffer the harsh consequences of this lack of care.

In recent days I have known cases of two young men who have lost their jobs because of the virtual reputation they have left. I want to comment as a warning to mariners to awareness and to help Facebook users we are more cautious:

One is when a young professor who taught chemistry at a prestigious private school. On weekends she sang in a rock group . In the network began to feed a album filled with pictures in the costumes that appeared to say "aggressive" and provocative poses , in which there was always a good spliff or a pitcher of beer. In discharging its wall comments using the jargon of these groups rok hard. Some of the students agreed to its profile, said his parents and they were quick to go to school to protest. The young Professor was fired immediately and were of no arguments that professionally satisfied with their job properly and the other was part of his private life.

The other case is also a young language teacher in a school. After four years developing this work without complaint also was forced to quit his job. The reason is that while on holiday in Ibiza , did what any young person can make ... partying ... hair down and drink. posted photos on Facebook and commented say uninhibited in its wall. What could not imagine is that in September, to join its work, the school's director invited her to resign or otherwise be dismissed for disciplinary a bad example to the ideology of the school.

The two young men who lost their jobs because of their virtual reputation, say they have activated their privacy filters for their photo albums were accessible only to friends, but the reality is that these photos and these comments were seen by his students and the parents of these students reported to school. Also continue to claim that one thing is work and quite another to privacy. But, hold it to sustain, the reality is that they have lost their jobs.

So, seeing what is worth " the punishment that we remain so careless with what we say and do in Facebook ?

Myammee Hair Flavor Of Love

COMBINATORIAL (2 of N, Teruel not exist)

( "As we said yesterday ... ") We had been in the probability of receiving pocket pairs (pair of hand). Today we will see how likely it is that these pocket pairs liguen a set, is a trio of our two hole cards (I think I'll think of a friendly translation for this term, I will not put the literal "hole cards" or "hole cards" because we bring too many memories of intercourse or golf, I do not like "hole cards", we'll see what I can think

...). First we calculate the probability of catching set on the flop. Remember to stretch Laplace favorable events / event possible.

possible events are easy to calculate: 50 letters are unknown, to be grouping of 3 to 3. This is C50, 3 = 19,600 possible flops.

Now for the favorable flops. Imagine you have 6h6c, then flops that are caught in September with a single 6 (if they leave the two is quad, that does not count). So the three flop cards we could get us the following:

6dXX

The X is not porn, or two diamonds (that most young people do not get caught) but X is not a mathematical (if it were, the second and third card on the flop would be the same. By the way, 6d means 6 of diamonds, in case anyone is too neophyte neophyte, and is not an insult, if someone is too stupid, and stupidity can be virtue in some contexts). The X is for us an unknown letter can be repeated or not. Then, when you leave the 6, the other two cards can be combined in many different ways, resulting in many positive events:

Since there are 48 unknown cards in the deck (52-2holecards-1 six-the six remaining and can not leave because it would quad = 48 possible cards to set on the flop), and can be grouped 2 by 2, as we have C48, 2 = 1128 flops favorable. Ojo, favorable to the six of diamonds, but all this also happen to the 6 of spades, so in total there are 2 * 1128 = 2256 flops favorable.

Total:

2256/19600 = 11.51%, every time we pp and see the flop, we caught September 1 of each 8.7 times .

This is the% you should see your database: if you play 100bb or more, the deviations of the% can greatly affect the profit or loss.

The total number of hands:

% pp =
% 5.88% 11.51%
set = Intersection of events: 0.68% = 1 in 148 hands.

But that's on the flop, if we reach the river the probability is higher, the board brings 5 \u200b\u200bcards, 4 of which are unknown:

possible: C50, 5 = 2118760
boards

6XXXX

board favorable: 2 * C48, 4 = 389 160
boards Laplace = 18.37% = every 5.4 times

The overall computation of hands:
5.88% * 18.37% = 1.08% = every 93 hands.

And if for some reason, sidereal astrology-hypnotic-mecagoenelcicloreproductivodelmejillóncebra-eclectic-sleepwalker-hermeneutic-bizarre-chirripitifláutico notedejesabiertalatapadelbáter want to know what is the probability of catching a set of 888 or above to the river?

In that case, the reduction in the number of pocket-friendly pair, as we saw in the previous article:
% pp> = 8 ....... 3.17% pro

the boards remain the same: those where there is one, and only one of the letters I reptartieron, 18.37%

intersecting both events: 888 +
% set up the river = 0.58% = every 172 hands

Contraindications: If you
Note that catches fewer sets than predicted here, and concludes that the probability in the real world there ... Do not worry: every time you get a pair, then VPIP 100%, 100% FLOP SAW and SAW 100% RIVER, and see how it starts to catch more sets and mushrooms "and Amanita faloides. "

(do not miss when it disintegrated with a laser beam of the bicycle child)