Confidentiality – Why Define CIA in Security?

As we know, from the security demand, the CIA means:

Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability

I don't understand why define that Integrity and Availability.

  1. If we make a plaintext confidentiality, integrity is a whole plaintext, that's the basic, why is there a gold lily?
  2. if there defines that Integritythe decrypted plaintext must be usable so that the Availability the lily is also gilded.

Define a tensor from an expression of other tensors in xAct

As far as I know, Mathematica SE has not been given a satisfactory answer. Google’s easy-to-find answers are all workarounds. So here is a canonical answer.

The function that does this is buried in the documentation for xTensor, although it's not the most recognizable, as its name is rather uninteresting. The required function is IndexSetwhich, as the name suggests, defines a tensor depending on its value indices… and implicitly as a function of a tensorial expression. For example, we could say

defTensor[A[a, b], M];
IndexSet[A[a_, b_], T[a, -c] B[b, c];

and this would do what we wanted above; Now, for example, we can symmetrize $ A $ and then expand that expression as a sum of products from $ T $ and $ B $,

naming – Use define in a condition in Scheme

In the scheme, the general form of a method is:

(define ({Surname} {parameter}) {body})

Where {body} accepts a sequence of expressions and allows these types of procedures:

> (define (f) (define x 1) (define y 1) (define z 1) (+ x y z))
> (f)
3

Likewise, the general form of a condition is:

(cond ({predicate} {Expression}) ({predicate} {Expression})… ({predicate} {Expression}))

Where {Expression} in each clause accepts a sequence of expressions that allow these types of conditions:

> (cond (#t 1 2 3) (#t 4))
3

But why can't I use it? define in the order of expressions of a condition like in a procedure?

> (cond (#t (define x 1) (define y 1) (define z 1) (+ x y z)) (#t 4))
ERROR on line 1: unexpected define: (define x 1)

Note. – I am working under MacOS 10.15.2 with the implementation of Chibi-Scheme 0.8.0, which should be completely R7RS compliant.

Applications – Define memory limits per application

Is there a way to define how much space an app can use?

I'm tired of uninstalling apps, deleting app data, and deleting files to see how these "misused" apps are swallowed up in just a few hours!

The worst thing is that I have real needs with some of these apps.
Take Outlook, for example, it wastes space on caching old emails that I'm not going to read, and there are no settings to control this behavior. I use it with my personal and business accounts. When I clean the data, the authentication steps for each account are repeated every day. This is just one of those problematic apps.

Repeatedly using the "delete things" method just looks stupid, a bad choice for process design …

And I don't care about the loss of functionality, they have to deal with every room that I think is worthy. =]

Define rsyslog templates for files and logs

In rsyslog there is a standard configuration for $ActionFileDefaultTemplate this defines the standard protocol format type. A user can also define a template to send these logs to a file with a dynamic name. My question is: is it possible to define a standard template for different protocol types or is it only one and done?

In this scenario, protocols that respond to TCP 514 receive the typical syslog header, and something that comes in through the Kafka module does not receive this header. Is that possible?

Define correct player role when registering if multiple plugin roles are involved?

I have a WordPress website with the plugins s2member and sportspress. If a user pays using the "s2member" stripe form, the "s2 member level 1" role is automatically set when the account is created. This causes me problems because I use Sportspress to manage scores (this is a social tennis center) and WordPress profile roles have to be set as "Player" in the general settings in order to create a player profile with Sportspress. s2member disables the default account settings page in WordPress because it manages logins. I tried to change user roles for "s2member level 1" and I was able to access functions of sportspress (e.g. posting an event), but these were not complete because no actual player profile was associated with sportspress when logging in ! s2 member doesn't seem to let you add a special role, but I could be wrong. I could only find one forum in the official s2memberforums and sportspress forums, which doesn't help since nobody has tried it with my specific configuration yet. This is my first website so any help would be greatly appreciated

8 – Define roles in the custom module

I am working on a custom module based on SimpleSAMLphp authentication and based on Guzzle HTTP requirements …

I wonder what the correct formatting in PHP should be to define my username and password.

Basically I use a hook that defines the roles and attributes …

function hook_simplesamlphp_auth_allow_login($attributes) {   
if (in_array('userid', 'password', $attributes('roles'))) {
    return FALSE;   
}   
 else {
    return TRUE;
  }
}

Then I refer to the roles and attributes in my controller …

public function getAttributes() {
  return (
    'userid' => (0 => 'this_is_the_userid'),
    'password' => (0 => 'this_is_the_password'),
    'roles' => (0 => ('userid=this_is_the_userid,password=this_is_the_password')),
   );
}

… and my AccessClient file.

$response = $client->request('GET', 'blank/blank/blank/blank/blank', ('idn_conversion' => true), (
   'multipart' => (
      (
               'userid' => 'this_is_the_userid',
               'password' => 'this_is_the_password',
               'roles' => 'userid=this_is_the_userid,password=this_is_the_password'
            ),
         )
     ));

If that works?

at.algebraic topology – Define chain complexes for cellular spaces with local coefficients

To let $ X $ be a nice finite cellular complex (a regular CW complex or a simple complex) equipped with a local system $ mathcal {F} $ of free rank 1 modules over a Noetherian commutative ring $ R $, What could be the most natural way to define the chain complex associated with this object?

In most textbooks I have seen authors who followed Steenrod's original recipe and first selected an arbitrary reference point (or a leading corner point for simple complexes) in each cell and then twisted the border operator to the homotopy class of using the appropriate module authomorphism Paths that connect the respective reference points (and are contained in the closure of the cell under consideration).

I have the impression that at least for finite cellular complexes it is possible to define the chain complex in a more natural way with local coefficients. Let’s think about it $ mathcal {F} $ From a locally constant sheaf rank 1, free modules are over $ R $, In the stratification of $ X $ associated with the cellular structure $ S_d $ stand for the layer consisting of the interiors of $ d $Cells. topologically $ S_d $ is a disjoint union of a finite number of $ d $Diskettes. Let's define $ d $Chains as global sections of the inverse image of $ mathcal {F} $ in terms of recording $ S_d hookrightarrow X $ (The resulting module is, of course, the product of copies of $ R $but since there are finally a lot of them, we can think of it as a direct sum). Well, for a couple of incident cells (a $ d $Cell and one of their $ (d-1) $there is a natural isomorphism between the modules of global pullback sections of $ mathcal {F} $ to them. To get the twisted differential, it is sufficient to use this isomorphism (instead of explicit bases in $ C_d $) in the definition of the border operator.

Even though this construction is limited to finite cellular complexes, this way of getting rid of arbitrariness still seems too simple to me. Is there a mistake in this reasoning?

Formatting – Define fields to avoid parentheses

The following definition for boxes in TraditionalForm Formats as $ {a, b } {c, d } $ (For the sake of simplicity, it only matches if the arguments are literal a. b. c. d):

f /: MakeBoxes(f(a, b, c, d), TraditionalForm) := 
   RowBox({RowBox({"{", "a", "b", "}"}), RowBox({"{", "c", "d", "}"})}):

Here is an example:

f(a, b, c, d) // TraditionalForm

$ {a, b } {c, d } $

However, if this object is multiplied by something, an unwanted bracket is displayed:

2*f(a, b, c, d) // TraditionalForm

$ 2 , ( {a, b } {c, d }) $

How do I change the box definition above to avoid parentheses?