Compare Siler City, stateshort} Medigap insurance companies within minutes. Quote comparison is the best way to locate affordable Medicare Supplmental insurance in Siler City. To begin enter your Zip Code and press "Compare Your Options". Our website will search for the best Medigap insurance carriers and providers in Chatham county. Finding the best coverage and low cost premium that fit your needs and budget can literally take you 20 minutes or less.
If you do want to get quotes for Medigap policies, you can either contact local insurance providers in Siler City, North Carolina, or you can use the Internet to help you find them. Submitting your information to these insurance providers will allow them to calculate how much you are going to pay. They will have different policy levels that you can choose from just like any ordinary health insurance policy. The amount that you pay is usually reflective of how much coverage you will have. In many cases, it's better to go with the most expensive plan so that you eliminate the possibility of being blindsided by very expensive medical bills.
Although we had just stated that you should pay the most money for Medigap insurance, this is only reflective of contacting one particular health insurance provider. Your goal is to get multiple quotes from different companies and look at all of the rates collectively. You will see that there are policies that are virtually identical, but they could be several hundred dollars a month less then other policies that are the same. In this case, you will want to choose the Siler City, North Carolina Medigap policy that is the lowest price which will come from one particular insurance provider.
Regardless of what your scenario is, a good standard comprehension of insurance coverage can aid you get the very best deal. By applying these pieces of advice, you can be knowledgeable and accomplish greatest benefits from overall health insurance coverage.
Try out to continue to be on your parent's health insurance policies prepare as prolonged as possible. If your father or mother has a good job and a wonderful insurance coverage plan and is willing to include you, consider them up on it. In some states, you can in fact continue being lined by your parent's health insurance policy prepare until you are thirty.
To preserve cash on your health insurance policies strategy, do not be fooled by programs with delivers that are as well very good to be correct. For instance, some programs may not demand any expenses for particular daily preventative treatment, but do not have the rewards that a lot of other health insurance coverage ideas offer.
If you just take prescription medications, be positive that your insurance policy program covers the value of these medicines. It truly is a good thought to check out each and every calendar year, to make certain that your insurer has not changed its coverage for any of your drugs. You may possibly also be ready to help save cash by getting generic drugs or buying them by mail.
Find out the distinctions between HMO's, PPO's, and POS programs and decide what will be the best match for your overall health demands. They all have benefits and negatives that will impact the way you pay for and use your insurance policy. HMO's need give considerably less overall flexibility but larger price, PPO's give you far more alternatives however the fees can be dear. A POS strategy brings together factors of both HMO's and PPO's.
Get health insurance coverage via a group. No matter whether it be an worker group, a union association, or other firm that performs with specified classes of folks, check to see if they have wellness insurance policy. Several groups provide discounted overall health insurance policies procedures if you indication up for it as a team member, so be part of up!
If you need to have a lot more health insurance policies, do not consider out a 2nd policy. Instead, incorporate a "rider" to your present policy. This is usually much considerably less costly. Only in some situations, is it much more price effective to consider out a next coverage. If the person is in outstanding wellness, you might want to store close to.
Recognize the variances among a PPO policy and a HMO policy if you want to receive the best attainable level of treatment with your wellness insurance coverage. You not only have to think about what is actually best for you, but also what is greatest for your young children - if they need to happen to tumble unwell or experience an accident.
Even if you have a PPO, if you're thinking about any sort of procedure, you should certainly get in touch with your well being insurance coverage company to be certain the process you want to have is covered. All also frequently, folks have processes accomplished without having examining with their well being insurance policy organization, only to locate after the simple fact that the process was not coated and they are now a hundred% economically responsible for it. Know prior to you go!
Question for a cost-free demo. As with most things in daily life, your insurance policy program may possibly come with a free trial time period. If this is offered, get gain of it. Usually. this will not indicate that you get a free month, relatively that you pay out for a thirty day period and if you usually are not satisfied you can get a refund. Make certain you adhere to the tips however, such as needing to request for the refund in creating.
Before possessing a baby you ought to know about how a lot you will have to shell out even with overall health insurance policies. If you have a PPO you might finish up paying about $a thousand or even a lot more for the delivery. If you have an HMO your charges will most likely be a whole lot lower. It is very best to determine it out just before you get expecting.
So you have determined on health insurance policies, and that is probably fairly a healthier determination. Nevertheless, get your time and do your homework. Don't just instinctively decide a prepare with no studying a variety and obtaining the professionals and negatives of every single. As this sort of you will be better secured must the worst come to fruition.


text:
Nestlé makes strategic move to create global leader in ice cream
Vevey, Switzerland – WEBWIRE – Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Nestlé announced today that it has reached an agreement to sell its U.S. ice cream business to Froneri, an ice cream-focused joint venture Nestlé created in 2016 with PAI Partners, for a transaction value of USD 4 billion.
In 2016, Nestlé and PAI Partners merged Nestlé's European ice cream business in 20 countries and PAI-owned R&R to create Froneri, one of the world's largest ice cream companies.
With a portfolio of iconic brands, unparalleled ice cream knowledge and focus as well as an agile and entrepreneurial management style, Froneri has been able to achieve rapid sales and profit growth, steadily gaining market share and reaching a turnover of around CHF 2.9 billion in 2018.
Froneri, which already had operations in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia-Pacific will now have a strong presence in the U.S., the largest ice cream market in the world. The recent acquisitions of TipTop in New Zealand and Nestlé's ice cream business in Israel have also increased Froneri's growing global footprint.
Nestlé USA's successful ice cream business comes with a high-caliber management team, marketing, manufacturing and sales/distribution capabilities. In 2018, turnover was USD 1.8 billion. With brands like Häagen-Dazs, Drumstick and Outshine, the business commands leadership in key ice cream categories, notably super premium.
Commenting on the transaction, Mark Schneider, Nestlé CEO, said: "The creation of Froneri has been a phenomenal success. We are now making this business our global strategic partner in ice cream and are convinced that Froneri's successful business model can be extended to the U.S. market. With this transaction, we are taking a decisive step towards our goal of achieving global leadership in ice cream."
Ibrahim Najafi, Froneri CEO, said: "This is another milestone acquisition for Froneri as we drive towards becoming the world's best ice cream company. We're delighted to be bringing such well-loved U.S. brands into the Froneri family. The acquisition is testament to the strength and longevity of our relationship with Nestlé. This partnership and the continued support of PAI Partners will be essential to ensuring we continue to delight consumers with innovative, high quality products in all markets."
Frédéric Stévenin, Partner at PAI Partners, said: "We are excited to bring Nestlé's stellar U.S. ice cream business to Froneri. This is a great opportunity for further growth, building on the expertise of the world's leading pure-play ice cream company."
The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, following the completion of customary regulatory approvals. Nestlé will continue to manage its remaining ice cream businesses in Canada, Latin America and Asia as part of its current market structure.
( Press Release Image: https://photos.webwire.com/prmedia/6/251508/251508-1.png )
WebWireID251508

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: What's wrong with this algorithm implementation [Sieve of Erathosthene] I'm trying to implement the Sieve of Eratosthene in C++. However after several attempts at this I always get runtime errors. I'm thinking this has to do with the state of iterators being used get corrupted somewhere. I can't put my finger on it though. Here is my code:
    //Sieves all multiples of  the current sequence element
    bool multiple_sieve(std::list<int>& num_list)
    {
        std::list<int>::iterator list_iter(num_list.begin());
        std::list<int>::reverse_iterator last_element_iter(num_list.rbegin());

        for(std::list<int>::iterator elements_iter(++list_iter);
           elements_iter !=  num_list.end();)
        {
            if((*elements_iter % *list_iter == 0) &&
             (*elements_iter <= *last_element_iter) && (*list_iter != 1))
                num_list.erase(elements_iter);
            else ++elements_iter;
        }
        return true;
    }

    std::list<int>& prime_sieve(std::list<int>& num_list)
    {
        for(std::list<int>::iterator list_iter(num_list.begin());
          list_iter != num_list.end(); ++list_iter)
            multiple_sieve(num_list);
        return num_list;
    }

What I'm doing wrong? What's generating the runtime errors?
Update: When I run this in my tests I get an error with the message "list iterators are not compatible".

A: This line:
num_list.erase(elements_iter);

Is going to cause you problems since you are modifying the list while iterating it.  You could do this to avoid that problem:
elements_iter = num_list.erase(elements_iter);

ETA: Removed stuff about erase() invalidating other iterators (looks like they are safe in this case) - just set elements_iter to the return value from erase() and you should be good to go.

A: I don't know why you're using a list here. It's easier to run sieve on vector and save primes in list.
std::list<int> primes(int MAXN){
  std::list<int> result;
  std::vector<bool> sieve(MAXN+1,true);
  for(int i=2;i<=MAXN;i++){
    if(sieve[i]==true){
      result.push_back(i);
      if((long long)i*i<=MAXN)  //prevent integer overflow
        for(int j=i*i;j<=MAXN;j+=i)
          sieve[j]=false;
    }
  }
  return result;
}

A: I think I see one problem and it's std::list.erase(). erase() invalidates erased iterator only - all iterators to other parts are valid. After you erased it, you keep using it in for statement - "elements_iter !=  num_list.end()".
To solve you can use the fact that erase() returns iterator next after erased one or end if erased oiterator was last one. So replace line:
num_list.erase(elements_iter);
by
elements_iter = num_list.erase(elements_iter);
If you still have a problem I advise you to debug your algo under Visual Studio - it has degub version of STL, so in case of error debugger will stop on line causing problem.

A: num_list.erase(elements_iter)

I don't think you should do this, this deletes the number from your list completely, you rather want to mark it as a non-prime.
If you really want to use STL for this instead of a bool array, better use std::bitset like in this implementation (well, there might also be better ones).

A: I've posted a more efficient sieve previously.

This works for me.  Notable modifications from your code: use .erase(i++) otherwise the iterator gets invalidated, and start multiple_sieve from successive locations in the list rather than always from the start.
#include <iostream>
#include <list>

template<typename T, typename L>
void multiple_sieve(L &nums,
        const typename L::iterator &begin, const typename L::iterator &end) {
    T first = *begin;
    typename L::iterator i(begin);
    ++i;
    while (i != end)
        if (*i % first == 0) nums.erase(i++);
        else ++i;
}

template<typename T, typename L>
void prime_sieve(L &nums) {
    typename L::iterator end = nums.end();
    for (typename L::iterator i(nums.begin()); i != end; ++i)
        multiple_sieve<T, L>(nums, i, end);
}

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    std::list<int> list;
    for (int i = 2; i < 1000; i++)
        list.push_back(i);
    prime_sieve<int, std::list<int> >(list);
    for (std::list<int>::iterator i(list.begin());
            i != list.end(); i++)
        std::cout << *i << std::endl;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln - News
Further offers
Proposed ePrivacy Regulation: In-Depth Study for Parliament and EDPS Opinion
In May 2017, the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs has released the in-depth study of the proposed ePrivacy Regulation "An Assessment of the Commission's Proposal on Privacy and Electronic Communications" (for comparisons see Bender/Jones/Young/Wulfert-Markert, "Recent Developments and Future Changes to Internet Privacy Rules in the EU, the UK and the U.S.", CRi 2017, pp. 68-74).
On 26 April 2017, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) published his Opinion on the ePrivacy Regulation proposed by the European Commission.
In-Depth Study: Key Findings and Recommendations
The in-depth study was requested by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee) and prepared by Dr. Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius (project leader) as well as Dr. Joris Van Hoboken, Ronan Fahy, Dr. Kristina Irion and Max Rozendaal.(all authors of IViR Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam). According to its abstract, the study "assesses whether the proposal would ensure that the right to the protection of personal data, the right to respect for private life and communications, and related rights enjoy a high standard of protection," while highlighting "the proposal's potential benefits and drawbacks more generally."
On its page 14, the study for the LIBE Committee presents its key findings and recommendations:
"The ePrivacy proposal has good elements, but should be significantly amended to protect the right to privacy and confidentiality of communications.
Location tracking, such as Wi-Fi tracking, should only be allowed after people give their consent (with possibly a limited exception for anonymous people counting, if
thee are sufficient safeguards for privacy).
Browsers and similar software should be set to privacy by default. It should be made easier for people to give or refuse consent to online tracking, for instance by requiring
companies to comply with the Do Not Track standard.
Tracking walls and similar take-it-or-leave-it choices regarding privacy should be banned, or banned in certain circumstances.
Companies should only be allowed to analyse people's communications, such as emails, phone conversation, or chats, or the related metadata, when all end-users give meaningful informed consent, subject to limited, narrow, and specific exceptions.
The definition of metadata should be amended.
Other provisions should also be clarified and amended."
The vote in the LIBE Committee is tentatively scheduled for October 2017.
EDPS Opinion on ePrivacy Regulation
In his Opinion on the ePrivacy Regulation, the EDPS supports the Commission's aim to provide for comprehensive protection of electronic communications and views the extension of confidentiality obligations to a broader range of providers and services as a particularly important step forward. However, the EDPS finds that certain improvements are necessary if the ePrivacy Regulation is to deliver on the promise of a high level of protection for electronic communications.
In particular, the EDPS lists in his Conclusion (pages 22-23) the following key concerns:
"the definitions under the Proposal must not depend on the separate legislative procedure concerning the Directive establishing the European Electronic Communications Code53 (the EECC Proposal);
the provisions on end-user consent need to be strengthened. Consent must be requested from the individuals who are using the services, whether or not they have subscribed for them and from all parties to a communication. In addition, data subjects who are not parties to the communications must also be protected;
it must be ensured that the relationship between the GDPR and the ePrivacy Regulation does not leave loopholes for the protection of personal data. Personal data collected based on end-user consent or another legal ground under the ePrivacy Regulation must not be subsequently further processed outside the scope of such consent or exception on a legal ground which might otherwise be available under the GDPR, but not under the ePrivacy Regulation;
the Proposal lacks ambition with regard to the so-called 'tracking walls' (also known as 'cookie walls'). Access to websites must not be made conditional upon the individual being forced to 'consent' to being tracked across websites. In other words, the EDPS calls on the legislators to ensure that consent will be genuinely freely given;
Standard browser setting: the Proposal fails to ensure that browsers (and other software placed on the market permitting electronic communications) will by default be set to prevent tracking individuals' digital footsteps;
the exceptions regarding tracking of location of terminal equipment are too broad and lack adequate safeguards;
the Proposal includes the possibility for Member States to introduce restrictions; these call for specific safeguards.
These main concerns -along with recommendations how to address them- are outlined in this Opinion."
The EDPS also "provides further -and sometimes more technical- comments and recommendations on the Proposal in an Annex, in particular, to facilitate the work of legislators and other stakeholders who wish to further improve the text during the legislative process."
European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, "Assessment of the Commission's Proposal on Privacy and Electronic Communications", Study, May 2017
EDPS, EDPS Opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications (ePrivacy Regulation), Opinion 6/2017, 24 April 2017
Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt vom 07.06.2017 14:25
Test subscription
Computer Law Review International
Subscribe now to CRi and secure the advantages of legal comparison for your practice: state-of-the-art approaches and solutions from other jurisdictions – every second month, six times a year.
Print (ordering option in German)
eJournal as PDF at De Gruyter
Back Print to the Top Imprint Data Protection Policy