The advance health care directive in my state is a physical object, several pieces of paper. I'm advised to make more paper copies and keep them in various places. It's hard to wire paper.
My estate planning is, basically, that I use my money while I'm alive, and then I want it to go to my wife, my son if she's dead, etc.. It isn't to give away all my money while I can still spend it. My significant assets are either joint or transfer-on-death. This is legitimate estate planning.
So, my directive says "don't resuscitate if X", X happens, and they expensively resuscitate me and cause damage that requires expensive medical care, or I need expensive medical care to keep the heart beating and the brain in a coma. Why should that be taken out of my estate?
Suppose I have an advance health care directive properly filed that says DNR if X happens. X happens. I go to the emergency room, and the resuscitate me. Am I liable for the cost of treatment I specifically refused?
In my state, there's a preprinted form to use. It needs either notarization or the signatures of two witnesses. Check what's needed in your state. Get the form and you don't need to pay lawyers or notary, as long as you have two people who aren't health care providers willing to witness.
Also, they'll listen to you if you're conscious and able to talk. This is for when you're unconscious. Not treating you is a really big irreversible decision, and it seems reasonable to make sure that is what you want.
What if they are suffering from stroke, concussion or physical or mental brain damage?
Yup, that's a problem, normally with mental illness. Some psychiatric drugs are reasonably free of side effects, and some are not. If someone with schizophrenia, to give an example, refuses the anti-psychotics, is that decision because the drugs have really unpleasant side effects, or because the person is schizophrenic and incapable of making an informed adult decision?
If I'm conscious, I can refuse aid. If I stay conscious, I can change my mind, particularly if my condition changes. If I start bleeding badly, for example, it's reasonable to ask if I want aid now. If I go unconscious, my condition has changed, and the aid provider would find it reasonable to ask if I want aid now. Since I can't answer, the answer is assumed to be "Yes".
I had a blood typing done recently. There was a small transparent rectangle with three little spots for whatever testing material they used. They stuck my finger and let a drop fall in each spots, and the clumping was visible. For some reason, when I left, they wanted me to be positive.
And the guy who brought the bomb grabs his neighbor's phone or whatever and smashes it. End of bomb warning, and now the terrorist knows his neighbor tried to tell on him. Like that improves the situation.
Thing is, this wasn't a minor thing like forgetting your turn signal. This was a deliberate choice of words that indicates that there is a bomb on board. If you're monitoring the situation, you don't know if it's a joke. You don't know that this wasn't the best way for whoever to communicate this, for whatever reasons. Somebody is saying there's a bomb on board. You need to take this seriously.
I don't know much about Rust, but what is this compile time proof? Unless the program is written with some serious constraints, knowing when to free memory is equivalent to knowing whether the program halts or not. (Put a hard stop past one possible free point, and infinite loops past the others. If you know that the memory is supposed to be freed there, you know whether the program halts or not. )
If it only frees memory when it can prove it's safe, it's being overly conservative, and the memory management leaks.
It can't be that simply wrong, but I really don't see how this could work.
Mass, and hence energy picked up in the fall, varies with the cube of the length. Tissue strength varies with the square. If you're going to be dropped a long way, being small is a good idea.
I'm going to strongly suggest that you run that by a tax lawyer before trying it. Corporations don't just leave money in other countries; they leave it in other corporations. Microsoft Ireland is not the same company as Microsoft in the US, so Microsoft Ireland can hold money that isn't held by anyone or any corporation in the US.
Some technology replacement is pretty much drop-in, like LED light bulbs. Other technology replacement is more different. Electric cars have lots of advantages compared to ICE cars, and some disadvantages.
You know, I have worked on OSes that didn't decide to take over my computer for hours to install updates I hadn't asked for and then hanging so I couldn't just let the blasted thing update itself overnight. But, then, I'm one of those rare people who actually wants to use his computer to do something with rather than run crappy updates. I've also worked with OSes that could actually keep a wireless connection up without needing to be rebooted now and then when it decided to go down. I've even worked on OSes that didn't hang for minutes while not showing any app or process showing excess use on the Resource Monitor.
And you'll get a biased sample, because racism hoaxes don't have to be political in nature. What you'll get is articles about real or alleged racism hoaxes that somebody wants to label "left wing" for a variety of possible reasons.
Moreover, the number found tells us nothing without anything to compare it to. Actual acts of racism are probably far greater in number than the hoaxes, but it suits certain people's political agenda to publicize the hoaxes and disregard actual racism.
Humor may be in the eye of the beholder, but it's bad if the eye of the person potentially being victimized doesn't contain the humor. That's the sort of thing I'd pull on my wife, but for any other woman I'd want consent in advance.
If there's a documented algorithm (and there darn well should be) and the code is deliberately written to clearly implement the algorithm (which it probably isn't), code analysis could be useful as a way of verifying it. Otherwise, the only thing source code analysis can say is that it's unsuited for forensics.
It's simple, if completely and totally impractical. There's a claim that a false positive will happen once in 211 quinttillion times. In another Universe, we could run 211 quintillion tests, and if this were the case we'd be looking at a Poisson distribution with lambda of 1. Obviously, that's not good enough. We need many more tests. We can't potentially test enough to make sure the probability is one in 211 quintillion times, but 211 quintillion really means between 210.5 and 211.5 quintillion, and it's philosophically possible to run enough tests to have any desired confidence that the real probability is in that range. I'm not going to bother to compute how many.
There are no practical equivalent means. As you say, the estimate is extrapolation from a far smaller number of what we really hope are competently run tests. It is possible to dismiss the claim given those tests, but it's not possible to confirm it. This is the real world, and the real world is messy. Suppose the method was absolutely perfect and they ran a million tests. Now, consider that there may be a one in a billion chance that there would be some sort of unnoticed contamination of the sample, or an undetectable failure of the device, that would create a false positive. That one in a billion chance would be exceedingly unlikely to turn up in the million tests (this can be treated as a Poisson distribution with lambda of 0.001), and it would mean the company is off by eleven orders of magnitude. We know nothing about differences in human physiology with a confidence of 1 minus a 211-quntillionth, so we can't reason from that.
I've read a lot about the Third Reich, and how it came to be. Trump isn't Hitler, but Trump supporters are disturbingly like Hitler supporters, and some of Trump's actions are disturbingly like some of Hitler's. I assume other right-wing dictatorships start out similarly, but I haven't studied them enough to be sure. "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it", and I really, really don't want to repeat certain history. And, yes, this is apparently much worse than you ever thought. Assuming you ever thought, that is, because Trump supporters are demonstrably irrational. They fell for Trump's rhetoric while knowing he was an inveterate liar. They disregarded Trump's faults while trumpeting much more minor faults of Clinton's. And, of course, they absolutely refuse to face the truth.
Godwin's law says that, as a Usenet discussion continues, the odds of someone mentioning Hitler approach one. It doesn't say that any argument that mentions Hitler automatically loses.
Trump is unlikely to put Jews into camps, but have you noticed how Trump and Trump supporters feel about Muslims? Have you noticed some of the anti-Muslim rhetoric on Slashdot?
And, yes, I do know that Trump won. If he had lost like the majority of voting Americans wanted, I wouldn't be worried about this. I'm not going to get over it as long as he appoints totally unqualified people, pushes measures that will hurt most of the country and kill some of the citizens, and moves towards war with North Korea. There was a possibility that he could have turned into a halfway decent President, and he didn't. This is worse than I had feared.
Slashdot Mirror
The advance health care directive in my state is a physical object, several pieces of paper. I'm advised to make more paper copies and keep them in various places. It's hard to wire paper.
My estate planning is, basically, that I use my money while I'm alive, and then I want it to go to my wife, my son if she's dead, etc.. It isn't to give away all my money while I can still spend it. My significant assets are either joint or transfer-on-death. This is legitimate estate planning.
So, my directive says "don't resuscitate if X", X happens, and they expensively resuscitate me and cause damage that requires expensive medical care, or I need expensive medical care to keep the heart beating and the brain in a coma. Why should that be taken out of my estate?
I've wondered about this.
Suppose I have an advance health care directive properly filed that says DNR if X happens. X happens. I go to the emergency room, and the resuscitate me. Am I liable for the cost of treatment I specifically refused?
In my state, there's a preprinted form to use. It needs either notarization or the signatures of two witnesses. Check what's needed in your state. Get the form and you don't need to pay lawyers or notary, as long as you have two people who aren't health care providers willing to witness.
Also, they'll listen to you if you're conscious and able to talk. This is for when you're unconscious. Not treating you is a really big irreversible decision, and it seems reasonable to make sure that is what you want.
Yup, that's a problem, normally with mental illness. Some psychiatric drugs are reasonably free of side effects, and some are not. If someone with schizophrenia, to give an example, refuses the anti-psychotics, is that decision because the drugs have really unpleasant side effects, or because the person is schizophrenic and incapable of making an informed adult decision?
If I'm conscious, I can refuse aid. If I stay conscious, I can change my mind, particularly if my condition changes. If I start bleeding badly, for example, it's reasonable to ask if I want aid now. If I go unconscious, my condition has changed, and the aid provider would find it reasonable to ask if I want aid now. Since I can't answer, the answer is assumed to be "Yes".
I had a blood typing done recently. There was a small transparent rectangle with three little spots for whatever testing material they used. They stuck my finger and let a drop fall in each spots, and the clumping was visible. For some reason, when I left, they wanted me to be positive.
Depending on whether they've reproduced already.
Right now, if I need such care, odds are I'm going to be permanently totally paralyzed. I figure that's a good reason for at least a partial DNR.
Typically, if the brain is dead, the person is dead. Exceptions include some current Republicans and Slashdot posters.
And the guy who brought the bomb grabs his neighbor's phone or whatever and smashes it. End of bomb warning, and now the terrorist knows his neighbor tried to tell on him. Like that improves the situation.
Thing is, this wasn't a minor thing like forgetting your turn signal. This was a deliberate choice of words that indicates that there is a bomb on board. If you're monitoring the situation, you don't know if it's a joke. You don't know that this wasn't the best way for whoever to communicate this, for whatever reasons. Somebody is saying there's a bomb on board. You need to take this seriously.
Yup. All I have to do is say that my favorite languages are C++, Common Lisp, and Perl, and I'm blaspheming against everybody.
The original STL was turned into standard libraries that mostly contain templates.
I don't know much about Rust, but what is this compile time proof? Unless the program is written with some serious constraints, knowing when to free memory is equivalent to knowing whether the program halts or not. (Put a hard stop past one possible free point, and infinite loops past the others. If you know that the memory is supposed to be freed there, you know whether the program halts or not. )
If it only frees memory when it can prove it's safe, it's being overly conservative, and the memory management leaks.
It can't be that simply wrong, but I really don't see how this could work.
Mass, and hence energy picked up in the fall, varies with the cube of the length. Tissue strength varies with the square. If you're going to be dropped a long way, being small is a good idea.
I'm going to strongly suggest that you run that by a tax lawyer before trying it. Corporations don't just leave money in other countries; they leave it in other corporations. Microsoft Ireland is not the same company as Microsoft in the US, so Microsoft Ireland can hold money that isn't held by anyone or any corporation in the US.
Some technology replacement is pretty much drop-in, like LED light bulbs. Other technology replacement is more different. Electric cars have lots of advantages compared to ICE cars, and some disadvantages.
Where do you get your figures? They're completely unlike any values I've seen before.
You know, I have worked on OSes that didn't decide to take over my computer for hours to install updates I hadn't asked for and then hanging so I couldn't just let the blasted thing update itself overnight. But, then, I'm one of those rare people who actually wants to use his computer to do something with rather than run crappy updates. I've also worked with OSes that could actually keep a wireless connection up without needing to be rebooted now and then when it decided to go down. I've even worked on OSes that didn't hang for minutes while not showing any app or process showing excess use on the Resource Monitor.
And you'll get a biased sample, because racism hoaxes don't have to be political in nature. What you'll get is articles about real or alleged racism hoaxes that somebody wants to label "left wing" for a variety of possible reasons.
Moreover, the number found tells us nothing without anything to compare it to. Actual acts of racism are probably far greater in number than the hoaxes, but it suits certain people's political agenda to publicize the hoaxes and disregard actual racism.
Humor may be in the eye of the beholder, but it's bad if the eye of the person potentially being victimized doesn't contain the humor. That's the sort of thing I'd pull on my wife, but for any other woman I'd want consent in advance.
If there's a documented algorithm (and there darn well should be) and the code is deliberately written to clearly implement the algorithm (which it probably isn't), code analysis could be useful as a way of verifying it. Otherwise, the only thing source code analysis can say is that it's unsuited for forensics.
It's simple, if completely and totally impractical. There's a claim that a false positive will happen once in 211 quinttillion times. In another Universe, we could run 211 quintillion tests, and if this were the case we'd be looking at a Poisson distribution with lambda of 1. Obviously, that's not good enough. We need many more tests. We can't potentially test enough to make sure the probability is one in 211 quintillion times, but 211 quintillion really means between 210.5 and 211.5 quintillion, and it's philosophically possible to run enough tests to have any desired confidence that the real probability is in that range. I'm not going to bother to compute how many.
There are no practical equivalent means. As you say, the estimate is extrapolation from a far smaller number of what we really hope are competently run tests. It is possible to dismiss the claim given those tests, but it's not possible to confirm it. This is the real world, and the real world is messy. Suppose the method was absolutely perfect and they ran a million tests. Now, consider that there may be a one in a billion chance that there would be some sort of unnoticed contamination of the sample, or an undetectable failure of the device, that would create a false positive. That one in a billion chance would be exceedingly unlikely to turn up in the million tests (this can be treated as a Poisson distribution with lambda of 0.001), and it would mean the company is off by eleven orders of magnitude. We know nothing about differences in human physiology with a confidence of 1 minus a 211-quntillionth, so we can't reason from that.
I've read a lot about the Third Reich, and how it came to be. Trump isn't Hitler, but Trump supporters are disturbingly like Hitler supporters, and some of Trump's actions are disturbingly like some of Hitler's. I assume other right-wing dictatorships start out similarly, but I haven't studied them enough to be sure. "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it", and I really, really don't want to repeat certain history. And, yes, this is apparently much worse than you ever thought. Assuming you ever thought, that is, because Trump supporters are demonstrably irrational. They fell for Trump's rhetoric while knowing he was an inveterate liar. They disregarded Trump's faults while trumpeting much more minor faults of Clinton's. And, of course, they absolutely refuse to face the truth.
Godwin's law says that, as a Usenet discussion continues, the odds of someone mentioning Hitler approach one. It doesn't say that any argument that mentions Hitler automatically loses.
Trump is unlikely to put Jews into camps, but have you noticed how Trump and Trump supporters feel about Muslims? Have you noticed some of the anti-Muslim rhetoric on Slashdot?
And, yes, I do know that Trump won. If he had lost like the majority of voting Americans wanted, I wouldn't be worried about this. I'm not going to get over it as long as he appoints totally unqualified people, pushes measures that will hurt most of the country and kill some of the citizens, and moves towards war with North Korea. There was a possibility that he could have turned into a halfway decent President, and he didn't. This is worse than I had feared.