Yes. And I commented "I can't say for sure what this person deals with."

Sure, he might just be lazy. I don't know this person. I know other people with schizophrenia and know that they'd say similar statements and do deal with what I said. I have some of the symptoms that are common negative symptoms as part of my autism. But what I've seen hasn't said for sure that he is, and what people have been saying have been showing that they don't understand the possibility of it not being all being lazy. Likely he's lazy in the sense of not putting more of his capabilities in than abled people do in their 40-60 hour work weeks, like some disabled people will and like we are expected to. Whether this is acceptable or not people can decide on their own.

Reality is that people with most disabilities, including schizophrenia, are more likely to be victims of violent crimes than be the perpetrator.

There's a difference between "I get tired and really don't want to work" and "I cannot drag myself out of bed or make food for myself and I'm losing the ability to take care of myself if I keep pushing myself to work when I shouldn't." I can't say for sure what this person deals with, but that difference is a meaningful one and is one that is common in disabilities with symptoms that include some that are common in schizophrenia. So, that might be what he's trying to say there.

When dealing with a disability, there is a lot more than people realize that causes people to be unable to work the 40 hour work week. Working with my therapist, we've determined that I currently would have a maximum of a 20 hour work week. I'm starting with one day a week in a volunteer position at a school. (So 9:30 - 3 one day a week is all I have currently)

The things that you're mentioning help, but they don't take into account the physical environment (which is a major part of my disability), the atmosphere of the workplace and the time you can handle that (which the OP mentions and is something that affects my ability to work as well), the time of managing the disability and what that takes out of you mentally as well as just simply for time. There's a lot to manage with disability.

I don't have a solution for the OP. I'm trying to manage my own disability, went through vocational rehab, was told I was currently unemployable, and am trying volunteering in somewhere that will both benefit from my help a lot and will help me build up skills that will help with my ability to work. But I do know its even harder than people think it is, because people overlook so many different parts of what living with a disability is like.

When it comes to schizophrenia, people know about the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, but many people don't know about the negative symptoms or the cognitive symptoms. Those need to be taken into account as well in a work environment.

(And I'm not even schizophrenic - I'm just autistic.)

Actually SSI isn't even $900 a month in most states - federal SSI is a little under $700, and then states add onto that some. Massachusetts maximum is under $900. SSI is about $750 a month if you're living with other people and paying a fair share of expenses in Massachusetts (a bit over $500 if you're not paying a fair share of expenses, a bit over $800 if you're living on your own).

SSDI is dependent on previous incomes, but that assumes you worked enough before becoming disabled and is where people get higher disability payments. With schizophrenia or autism this tends to be less frequent.

As someone who's been sold stolen property before, no the person who bought the stolen property doesn't get to keep it just because they weren't the one who did anything illegal. The police do reposes the what you'd bought and you don't even necessarily get the money you paid back, like they did in this case, you get it back if and when they catch the person who did the theft. I'm against what amazon did in that, but truthfully, the way that it is different than what occurs if this happens with physical objects is that the customer doesn't need to go out of their way to bring the object to the police and the customers got their money back immediately.

No, every statement I've made is completely relevant. I have spoken to Rowan and know Rowan's reasons for wanting a name change. I've also been told that their not public-knowledge but can share that fall into the 'preventing harassment' category. It's relevant that in other states this would be free, because if Rowan was in a state other than California, then he'd already have had a legal name change. As it is, he's trying to save up money for the legal name change because it'll cost him $400, despite the fact that using his legal name leads to harassment in multiple ways. He is in fact, not a "rich-white-man", and he chooses to use a name that he can both identify with and prevent harassment with in every way other than legally, before he can afford the legal name change.

So someone who has a stalker doesn't have a real reason to change their name? Someone who's being harassed and abused doesn't have a real reason to change their name? Someone who had a family member who was abusive, or went to jail doesn't have a reason to change their name? Someone who is transgendered doesn't have a real reason to change their name? Someone who has a highly religious name who does not associate with that culture (causing them harassment because of their name), has no reason to want to change their name?

Abusive fathers who end up in prison, and not wanting to share your name with that person is /not/ a problem restricted to the affluent caucasian population.

In my mind who's ridiculous in this situation is California, I've looked into costs to change your name for Massachusetts and if its to avoid harassment or such, then it is free, because that's not a situation of just happening to want to change your name. In California there isn't this distinction, and name changes just cost $400.

Just happening to not like your birth name is different than your birth name causing panic attacks and will agree that if you just happen to want to change your name then you should expect to be charged for it.
There are plenty of reasons that states will in fact, have legal name changes go through for free. The fact that this isn't true in California is absurd.

Except, like I had commented earlier, it assumes you have the money. Not worrying about charges of that level must be nice, but there are plenty of people who /don't/ have the money to get the legal documentation.

The thing about a legal name change, is that in some states they are expensive, especially for college students supporting themselves. As it says on Rowan's website, he's from California, and what it doesn't say is that in California legal name changes cost $400.

Personally there's no way I could afford $400 for a legal name change at this point in my life. For someone regularly employed, that might be a drop in the bucket, but for someone living paycheck to paycheck, or who's unemployed (like myself), $400 is something like a month's rent, which isn't something I can just spend on something else.

Yes, rowan really needs to get a legal name change as soon as this is doable, but I know plenty of people who have a legal name, and the name that they go by, just using the legal name for things like bank accounts and leases. They in fact even using the name they go by on google+.

While it would be good to be told, you are making a huge deal over this. It's a failure, but that doesn't mean that she's going to die if she doesn't wake up. It doesn't even mean she's going to have any problems.

Reading your description of her insulin pump makes me think of how complicated that is and how much she is relying on the pump for rather than doing out herself. It looks like the pump is doing an incredible huge amount.

I'm young. I remember when insulin pumps really started getting popular. I don't remember how old I was, but I remember my dad's first pump. Before that he had no way to inject insulin overnight. However you also don't eat while you're asleep. Every pump that he has had up to 4 years ago has not monitored his blood sugar, has not reacted to his blood sugar, has not calculated out how much insulin he should be injecting. (Actually he tried a continuous monitoring solution around 4 years ago and it did not work because he had been giving himself injections for too long and it would not keep an accurate reading). It was a device which he could tell to give him insulin and it would do so without requiring 5-10 injections every day, only a replacement ever 3 days.

Yes, it is absolutely a failure. Yes it absolutely should tell you. But its not the life or death situation you're making it out to be, and truthfully anyone with diabetes should know the warning signs of too high and too low, should know how much insulin to give themselves with what they're eating, and so on. The pump is an amazingly useful tool, but it should be just that a tool, because situations arise when you can't use the pump. It just so happens that my dad personally survived with diabetes over 30 years without one.
This is probably somewhat offtopic for the discussion, but there's a huge difference between an implantable pacemarker. While they both are relied on, one is internal, one is external, and the failures of the insulin pump are very different when they cause too much insulin to be given and not enough. One is much more a life or death scenario while the other can be worked around using the means that was used for the past 90 years because over one night the lack of insulin isn't scary.

The thing is, that it probably wouldn't take two years. What it needs to do is well defined and it is in an embedded system. I am far from an expert (though I do have some knowledge, probably the level of an introductory grad class) but it wouldn't surprise me if what it would come down to in terms of time is more in the order of one month. Much of the changes would be in the style of coding - it requires a more restricted style of coding. Writing your code in order to be verifiable in such a small setting is reasonable.

What it would bump is cost, the programmers would have to be more specialized. However, I think this is a fair trade for peoples lives.

It's more than unit testing, but it is something that is done for software which flies planes and there are people out there who have been taught the necessary skills.

Where by proven I mean mathematically proven using formal verification

I want medical devices to run code which has been proven. It can be done, even if it takes a lot of time and effort. Life and death situations are the only ones which make sense to go through proving code for, but it makes sense in those situations.

We do have vocational high schools available in the US. I don't know how common they are (in order to go from my town you had to go to school about a half hour away), but they're definitely available and definitely not uncommon.