That would lose - it would not be a stalemate, no matter where the bishops are, since white has pawn moves; and starting with the next move, black would begin checking white and will quickly checkmate.
2,868 karma · joined November 29, 2010
So black pawns have no legal moves, while the white pawns could move (the topmost pawn) or capture either of the black rooks, although this would be disastrous for white, as the black pieces would then be able to leave their position and would checkmate white in a few moves.
I do think that a computer will play this correctly for both black and white; for white, a capture will result in a checkmate within a few moves, which the computer will be able to see. So this may result in incorrect computer evaluation, but not in incorrect play.
Few people even bother to pretend that this is about anything other than closer control of Russian internet users by the Russian authorities. There is a weak spin about protecting the data of Russian users from foreign governments by placing it within Russia, which makes zero sense, since nothing prevents an American company from giving user data from its Russian server to the American government.
And before someone says that the US does the same thing, note that something like 1000 people have already been imprisoned in the Russian Federation over various online comments and posts, and even Facebook likes. The fact that the US violates privacy also doesn't mean that it's all the same thing.
Now, the FPGA is not necessarily an ideal place to insert your circuit; personally, I would put it in something like one of those flat ribbons which connect components inside so many devices, or a socket - they may have access to all the bus pins of the gadget, and they will be less conspicuous. I don't think 3D printing is the answer to this, since too many things would have to be 3D printed.
Now, I don't know how I would go about protecting from such attacks, or if this is even a real-life concern right now, but I would think that some kind of automated high-resolution X-ray imaging and analysis technology would be a more realistic direction.
And considering that regular color printers (inkjet and laser) have all been backdoored for ages - they print mostly invisible constellations of dots into every page which identify the individual printer - I would say that backdooring a "silicon printer" is also a definite possibility.
You can easily convince yourself that this won't work for an eye. Of course, you can use your finger to block out any object - as long as you hold your finger well away from your eye. Now take a match, and try to block out objects by holding it a centimeter in front of your eye; it doesn't work - you will see a diffuse slightly darkened area, but all objects will be visible.
Unfortunately, the "median" resuscitation call, in my own experience, is for something like "77-year-old cancer patient who is unconscious". We get there and see that there is no pulse, we have to go through the motions if there is no DNR order, but everyone knows it's hopeless, since it's not like we can cure cancer while we do chest compressions. Sometimes we can get a pulse back, but we know - although not "officially" - that the patient will be pronounced dead at the hospital within a few hours. Now I will say one thing here - it is often easier for the family to go through this process, since they can feel that "they've done everything till the very end", although from the point of view of medical practice it would be better to have a DNR order; that's really the type of situation that these orders are for.
But to reiterate - if you don't actually have disease that you know of, I would personally recommend giving yourself a chance, like that guy with the pneumothorax got. it's up to you, of course.
Though I would say that a living will is probably more useful for most relatively healthy people than a DNR order, since you can end up in a situation in which you are unable to function without any resuscitation being involved. I think a lot of the people commenting in this thread are really thinking of these more long-term situations, rather than resuscitation, which is an on-the-spot decision.
EDIT: Let me just add that for most people, a living will is really what they want when they think of preventing lingering in the ICU. A living will can say, for example, that in case you become unable to function, and your condition will not improve according to your doctors, you do not wish to be placed on a respirator, or have feeding tubes inserted, or to be resuscitated. (Of course you should consult advisers to put this together.)
A living will is not the same as a DNR order; it is more general. I think for most people it doesn't hurt to have it. On the other hand, walking around with a DNR order on you, if you are a person without a known great risk for cardiac arrest, is kind of pointless, IMO. You may, after all, become incapacitated in ways that do not involve cardiac arrest (like traumatic head injury or stroke).
You'd be putting the EMS crew in a very tough spot: believe me, nobody wants to do pointless resuscitations on people who don't want them, but there are usually very specific policies and laws about when an EMS crew can stop or not attempt resuscitation, and if they aren't met, it's really hard for me to see how an ambulance crew can follow your (apparent) wishes.
On a more positive note, I don't think that DNR orders make sense for people without advanced disease, or who are not elderly and in poor health. For the healthier people, an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is more likely to be caused by something like blood loss in an accident or by electric shock, or by relatively fixable arrhythmias and heart disease. I don't see a reason to prevent the emergency crew and the hospital from giving you a chance.
The homeopathic "doctor" was delighted. You see, the other thing in homeopathy, apart from the belief in water memory, is the concept of most disease as a type of itch ("psora"), which can erupt through the skin ("psora miasm"). No, really, I didn't make that up, you can (with some difficulty) find this stuff with Google. Since like cures like, allergens such as poison ivy, which cause skin rashes, are thought to be curing internal disease, and some homeopathic medicines are full of them, and are used as a complement to the super-diluted ones. Stay away from that whole swamp.
"Then, because I was still a beginner, I was assigned responsibility for what was thought to be the least important software to be developed for the next mission. I was the most of the beginners; I mean, I was the first junior person, on this next unmanned mission."
I think it's fair to say she was not "in charge" of things for a while. She was gradually given more responsibility and eventually became the director of COLOSSUS development; Dan Lickly gave her that job. This couldn't have happened until close to the end of COLOSSUS development (it was frozen at the end of 1966, she was "a beginner" in 1964), and I think it was actually after the freeze. She still held the job of COLOSSUS lead programmer in March 1969. She did not become head of program development until Dan Lickly left; which is exactly what she says. This happened after the Apollo 11 flight. Software development was largely complete. So she was not in charge of the team that developed the AGC software while that happened. OK?
I am not saying "she did not contribute" or anything else. I don't know where you got that from what I wrote.
Confirmation that she was still not program development director as of March 28, 1969 (which was only a few months before the Apollo 11 flight, with the software in pretty deep freeze) can be found in the header of the listing of said software.
It should be needless to point out that the AGC software was complete and frozen at this point, although bug fixes and some minor features made it in.
This doesn't stop misinformation from appearing all over the place, e.g. Wikipedia says "Details of these programs [LUMINARY and COLOSSUS] were implemented by a team under the direction of Margaret Hamilton", but this is false, as we've seen - LUMINARY, the moon landing software, was frozen while Hamilton was still on the COLOSSUS project. Also, if you root around the history of COLOSSUS itself - which I did at some point - you'll see that Margaret Hamilton became its programming leader in 1968, after COLOSSUS was complete.
And the statement from the last link:
"At the start of the Apollo program, the onboard flight software needed to land on the moon didn’t exist. Computer science wasn’t in any college curriculum. NASA turned to mathematician Margaret Hamilton, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to pioneer and direct the effort."
... is just jaw-dropping in how false it is. That simply didn't happen. NASA couldn't have possibly been aware of Margaret Hamilton at the time they decided to rely on MIT for Apollo guidance; she didn't join the project until several years later, and in a small role.
I am not at all trying to minimize her accomplishments, which included being responsible for the software work, such as release, integration, and debugging during most of the actual flights. However, a lot of people, basically just because of lack of knowledge, give her credit for leading the development or writing of the software as well, which is incorrect.
I appreciate your offer of friendship, but since this morning, after a conversation with the neighborhood not-quite-right-in-the-head lady, it would appear that I am getting all the crazy douchebag cultural immersion that I could possibly want. But thanks anyway.
As for being downvoted and needing a new account - I personally never care enough any more to get involved with that, but yeah, that's a good guess by the time after the West Coast wakes up, so have fun with that.
1) The final development PCBs (the engineering validation articles) are actually identical to the production PCBs. Your final EV revision becomes revision 0 in production; only the manufacturing method changes. So the prototype floor definitely has the ability to make production-quality PCBs.
2) The design change may or may not be complicated. Adding a port typically refers to a port already supported by the chipset; so you add a ribbon connector for it and change the layout only.
3) You generally wouldn't have full pick-and-place automation for making prototypes. There are manual tools (sort of semi-automated) for making a few PCBs. A large company is making prototype PCBs all the time. They know how to do it, and they don't stop manufacturing for it.
4) For the case, the easiest would be to rework an existing case (add a slot). Creating custom injection molds is kind of a big deal. Then again, if Fujitsu does that in house, maybe not that big. Don't know.
5) The expense would not involve a cash outlay, but it would definitely involve diverting engineering, manufacturing and sales resources to even communicate and deliver this whole thing, let alone make it. The engineers may have been pulled off something, or may have been waiting for work; business hasn't been that great for most manufacturers, if you haven't noticed. No, I don't know how Fujitsu accounts for this or why they made the decision to go ahead. I am not a manager at Fujitsu. I can tell you that most companies are very loathe to let prototypes and one-offs to leave their hands at all. So it's definitely impressive on Fujitsu's part that they would go to that length.
This was always my experience in electronics - you, as the development engineer, set up small-scale production (going from prototypes to EV or engineering validation articles, which are basically the final product produced by these manual/slow methods), and then manufacturing engineers work with you to transfer your processes to an automated assembly line making who knows how many units a minute.
It's not unusual to produce a special prototype in the small/experimental floor; I mean, Apple probably goes through hundreds (or whatever) of prototypes and test articles before releasing their next phone, and they are certainly not stopping their million-per-day manufacturing plants to make them. However, it does show impressive commitment to the customer on the part of Fujitsu.
Also, electronics is more cyclical than cars (3-year-old model may be completely different and useless compared to the current one), so it is common to produce everything in batches rather than "the Toyota way" with just-in-time. In other words, if a laptop model is sold for 2 years, the whole run may have been made in 6 months, and then you have that manufacturing equipment sitting idle while the next prototype is worked on, so you may have equipment and engineers to spare. Only a few of the highest-volume factories (e.g. Apple again, I assume) run at full capacity all the time.
Most advances in cancer treatment (which have together added many years to the lives of cancer patients) are actually much smaller than this: a few weeks added to life expectancy here and a small improvement to the survival rate there. But they steadily add up.