Subject: Rachael and DocOz: How to drop 1 lb a day

From: Celeb Chef Rachel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 12:07:38 -0700

Everyday w/Rachel Episode Recap
Spring Weight Loss Diary

Fresh Post-
------------

DocOz gave me some great advice and I lost 20lbs in 3 weeks. 

We teamed teamed up and devoted an entire episode to this discovery.

View Episode Clip Here -> http://www.odtagjot.com/everyday-rachel/docoz/fat.index

Thats how I did it w/out gym time or starving

Your Celebrity Chef, 
Rachel
posted - 5/30

We hope you enjoyed this Celeb Update. 
to hault further messages w/ Update Notice Messages
write to one one eight_K e c k s Ln_Ruff Dale, PA 15679 or http://www.odtagjot.com/oi4tefj.wfgoie4

I suggest to move the @SuppressWarnings to the assignment.   Aaron Digulla 
2	  	
PE, FIELD, METHOD, PARAMETERa: Yes, but how does that help? All of the above are declared at the class/method level - none of them lets me add one to an individual statement, right?  @psmears: It's the last target: LOCAL_VARIABLE which means you can use it in to annotate assignments to local variables. The usual pattern is @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Type tmp = After that, you can use tmp in a type safe way. : Ah, got you :) It was the necessity of adding a new, temporary variable that was confusing me. It's a little ugly, but still better than having to disable the warning for the entire function. Thanks for your help :)   This was extremely helpful. Thanks! Was looking for a simple way to handle internally using an array of predefined size as a region in a larger unit that was generic, but was having trouble figuring out howWhat would performance-wise be the best option? I need to get elements from this array quite often (within a loop). So a collection is probably slower, but w
 hich of these two is fastest?And if the generic type is bounded, the backing array should be of the bounding type.   @AaronDigulla Just to clarify that's not assignment, b closing the browser and you can't offer decent login UX without lots of browser-specific non-future-compatible JS. I don't care that much about "purely vs "almost and the whole associated religious debate, but if you say there are several ways, you should spell them out.   real world user agents (a.k.a. "browsers") consists of a cookie containing the value of HTTP Authentication. This way the server can provide the UI for entering login and password and the server can force the logout (by deleting the cookie). In addition, instead of responding 401 to require login when authentication is failed, the server must use temporary redirect to login screen and after successful login use temporary redirect back to previous location. Plus the server must embed logout action (POST form) to pretty much every page for logged 
 in users.  I don't understand why this answer is more voted than the one from @ArnaudBouchez. He describes a third way with Query Authentication, which as he says probably the closest to the 'stateless' principle. v - it's simply a much older answer, so it had more tim not sure how the Query Authentication option would map well to web applications. Note, we're talking about browsers viewing pages here, not programmed REST clients talking to REST servers. I haven't worked it out entirely, but I'm 	
Too bad nobody's commented on this. This is what I do too. I'd love to know if it's wrong or dangerous somehow. This will not work if the array is treated as a typed array of any kind, such as String[] s=b; in the above test() method. That's because the array of E isn't really, it's Objehis matters if you want, e.g. a  - you can't use an Oor that, you must Which is why you need to use the reflected Class<?> array creation.The cornerem is if you want to do, for example, public E[] toArray()  when internalArray is typed as E[], and is therefore actually an Obj This fails at runtime with a type-cast exception because an Object[] cannot be assigned to an array of whatever type  this approach will work as long as you do not return the array or pass it or store it in some place outside of the class that requires an array of a certain type. As long as you're inside the class you're fine because E is erased. It's "dangerous" because if you try to return it or something, you get no warning th
 at it's unsafe. But if you're careful then it works. p 23 '11 at 22:07
1	  	
It is quite safe. In E[] b = (E[])new Object[1]; you can clearly see that the only reference to the created array is b and that the type of b is E[]. Therefore there is no danger of you accidentally accessing the same array through a different variable of a different type. If instead, you had Object[] a