Slashdot Mirror

So, just like diamonds, that's artificial scarcity at full work here.

According to Wikipedia, a woman has something around 300.000 egg cells when she turns fertile. Let us assume 50.000 cells as the average for all women between 16 and 40. So how many human females do we have in that age range?

According to the US census [1], there were ~4.5 billion (short scale) humans on this planet between 16 and 64. To subtract the oldest 24 years, let us be pessimistic and assume an equal distribution; so we need to subtract one half (16 to 64 = 48 years; 16 to 40 = 24 years). We also subtract one half of that, as we only want women.
Therefore, we have roughly 1.125 billion human females of fertile and (in many countries) legal age.

So, (1.125 x 10^9) * (5 x 10^4) = 5.625 x 10^14 egg cells. 10^12 is a trillion (short scale); so we have somewhere around 562.5 trillion human egg cells on this planet earth.

According to [2] a single human egg cells weighs between 0.00177-0.0042 mg. Average of 0.001mg. That means the total mass of all human egg cells is: ~0.5 trillion milligrams. Since milli = 1/1000, that makes 0.5 billion grams. Since 1kg = 1000g, we have 0.5 million kg of human egg cells. That means a bit over half a megaton of human egg cells at this moment.

According to Google, that's 17 636 981 ounces of human egg cells.

Plus, if even 1 out of every 50.000 cloning attempts works (assuming you're only producing female clones), it's self-replenishing. :p

[1] - http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1353_age_distribution_by_country.html
[1] - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Weight_of_a_human_egg_cell

Hammers and clubs are responsible for more deaths than the rifles some people are so eager to ban.

You seriously think this? Between 1980 and 1988, blunt instruments were responsible for about 6% of murders. Guns were responsible for about 60%.

I invite you to try again using the census bureau numbers.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/239_school_enrollment_with_projections.html

1989 10,578 2,961
1999 11,602 3,279
2009 12,715 3,621

In 20 years, total college population has grown from ~13.5k to ~16.3k. ~17% increase
In 10 years, total college population has grown from ~14.9k to ~16.3k. ~9.4% over the last decade.

I don't see a tsunami of students. Why don't you compare these numbers to tuition increases and total college spending.

Percentage of income: The more you earn, the less you give.

As a percentage of income, modern wealthy households give about as much as any other group. Try again.

Your single citation (which says nothing about average donation rates over time, and rather just compares geography) actually works against your overall claim:

Piff says it's not that rich people aren't generous. They're often just isolated. They don't see a lot of poor people in their daily lives.

So let's go back to my earlier suggestion: Show appreciation for the donations that are given. Don't attack the wealthy for having money, don't accuse them of greed (any more than any other human), and don't measure generosity solely by how much it hurts.

Now sit down and shut up.

My, you are a cranky one, aren't you?

Like I said you'd claim conspiracy. Check these links:

Preventable deaths by country: http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

Healthy life expectancy by country: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

But keep up the "We're number one!" chant.

Sorry for the delay - getting my car ready for sale...

I haven't had time to dig up the direct stats, but will later today - but it isn't speculation on my part. Here's at least some data: between 2001 and Sept 2007, over $350 billion worth of credit card debt was transferred to home equity loans (which, interestingly, gets the borrower a tax break, because mortgage interest in the US is deductible). That's according to the Rochester Institute of Technology, altho I could only find it quoted, not the direct data yet. Home equity loans rose from $153 billion in 1990 to $317 billion in 1998 http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/812_estimated_home_equity_debt_outstanding_by.html - I'll find data that takes us up to 2011. See too this link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ALSREACB?cid=100 courtesy the St. Louis Fed, for loans secured by real estate - obviously this doesn't distinguish between mortgages and home equity loans, but it serves to give you a sense of the trending leading up to the economic downturn.

Sorry for not being more thorough - lots on the go at the moment!

I have also lived in both countries and can attest that Brasil has a much higher concentration of hot women than the USA does - speaking in general

I have no problem believing this, the difference between our populations is obvious (2010 Int. Obesity Taskforce). Note that the rates aren't directly comparable, as Brasil also has a more youthful population distribution which skews obesity numbers -- but I suppose that plays into the "hotness" distribution too:

Obesity Rates:
Brazil: M 8.9% | F 13.1%
USA: M 32.3% | F 35.5%

"Nations have passed away and left no trace,
and history gives the naked cause of it--
one single, simple reason in all cases;
they fell because their people were not fit."
  -- Rudyard Kipling

The US BY ITSELF is right now responsible for half of the worlds pollution...yet it accounts for only 1/22th of global population.

This is, of course, complete bullshit. The number is nowhere near what you quote. Moreover, most of those figures include CO2 output as "pollution". If we just stick with actual pollution, the picture looks a lot different.

First link : Hong Kong

Ever since 1996 Hong Kong has been a part of China.

Second link : Average not median

The first link was median not average.

From the CIA: Population below poverty line: 2.8%

note: 21.5 million rural population live below the official "absolute poverty" line (approximately $90 per year); an additional 35.5 million rural population live above that level but below the official "low income" line (approximately $125 per year) (2007)

Less than 10% of the Chinese population is "low income". A wiki article on Poverty in the United States says about 13% to 17% of the US population is below the poverty line. Chinese do better. Going further, according to Bureau of Statistics of China the Per Capita Annual Net Income of Rural Households rural which you have said are the ones suffering most, has increased from 686.31 yuan in 1990 to 2936.40. That's an increase of 400%. There's also this: Percentage of Rural Households Grouped by Per Capita Annual Net Income.

Third link : ? Who's point are you trying to prove?

That the Chinese are trying to fight inequality of income.

Here is my proof :
http://www.chinability.com/Reserves.htm

That proves nothing other than China has the largest foreign exchange reserves. Guess what? China is the largest exporter, would you then say it should be the wealthiest nation?

in the short term their citizens are getting artificially low wages to make it possible.

Yet those Chinese you decry as being paid low wages fight to get those jobs. In fact what you are doing is trying to impose your own living standards on others and when their living standards don't measure up then you say their suffering. But in fact you don't know how the economy works.

Falcon

First link : Hong Kong

Ever since 1996 Hong Kong has been a part of China.

Second link : Average not median

The first link was median not average.

From the CIA: Population below poverty line: 2.8%

note: 21.5 million rural population live below the official "absolute poverty" line (approximately $90 per year); an additional 35.5 million rural population live above that level but below the official "low income" line (approximately $125 per year) (2007)

Less than 10% of the Chinese population is "low income". A wiki article on Poverty in the United States says about 13% to 17% of the US population is below the poverty line. Chinese do better. Going further, according to Bureau of Statistics of China the Per Capita Annual Net Income of Rural Households rural which you have said are the ones suffering most, has increased from 686.31 yuan in 1990 to 2936.40. That's an increase of 400%. There's also this: Percentage of Rural Households Grouped by Per Capita Annual Net Income.

Third link : ? Who's point are you trying to prove?

That the Chinese are trying to fight inequality of income.

Here is my proof :
http://www.chinability.com/Reserves.htm

That proves nothing other than China has the largest foreign exchange reserves. Guess what? China is the largest exporter, would you then say it should be the wealthiest nation?

in the short term their citizens are getting artificially low wages to make it possible.

Yet those Chinese you decry as being paid low wages fight to get those jobs. In fact what you are doing is trying to impose your own living standards on others and when their living standards don't measure up then you say their suffering. But in fact you don't know how the economy works.

Falcon

Typically, dad's job pays more, so the lesser paid takes more risk by taking time off. This is a cultural issue

Before someone tries to say that this is because women get paid less, they need to look at the age difference in married couples (sorry that is US specific, but it is similar in other first world countries). Men tend to be older than their wives, which does not necessarily mean more experienced in their careers, but would give them more opportunity to be more experienced. Though I haven't been able to dig up the statistics on this, I would be willing to place good money on the bet that Men tend to enter the workforce younger than women, it almost also enter careers younger (Mind you I accept that this could be because of the sexist nature of parents and the lack of freedoms provided to girls and younger women). So yes it is cultural, but not as heavily weighted toward women being paid less for equal skill and experience as one might want to imply.

The odds of this kind of skew are ridiculously low.

We have ages of 27 people. 13 of them are over 65. If you look here, you can compute that of all Americans over 15 years old, 16.5% are over 65. (14.4/(14.4+72.9)=16.5)

I'll be generous and assume that 20% of Toyota owners are over 65.

So in a sample of size 27, what are the odds of getting 13 or more people over 65, when the population you are looking at has only 20% of its people over 65?

The odds of getting that skewed of a sample are only about 1 in a thousand. (1-binomdist(12,27,.2,1)) So despite claims to the contrary, that is indeed statistically significant.

(Disclaimer: I know nothing about where this sample even came from, and am not claiming anything about its validity. I am merely disputing the posts dismissing this sample out of hand without doing some simple math.)

Which studies?

Because Sweden's health system is ranked much higher, life expectancy is much higher, and preventable deaths are much fewer.

Probably not. Per capita, the gun death rate in Canada is 4.78 while the vehicular death rate is 10.3. Indeed, more vehicle deaths, but I find it very likely that there are more than twice as many drivers than gun owners.

In the US the gun death rate is 11.66 while the vehicular death rate is 15.8. Pretty similar. Again, I suspect there are more drivers than gun owners (although perhaps a closer gap).

While I couldn't find any persons-with-guns rates, I did find households-with-guns. The Canadian average is 29.1% while the US average is 39%. Strangely, I couldn't find a households-with-a-car stat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ratehttp://www.factbook.net/EGRF_Regional_analyses_HMCs.htm
http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html

Their ultimate goal is to stay in power indefinitely by populist rabble rousing, and supping on the funding that follows. In a system where 90%+ of standing incumbents get re-elected, the Constitution is the only thing that holds back the tyranny of the mob.

Denmark generates 19% of _ALL_ its electrical energy requirements using wind.
Spain and Portugal 9%, Germany 6%.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power)

The US has a total installed capacity of 695 GW ( http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/965_electric_energy_net_generation_and_installed.html )

25 GW wind / 695 GW installed = 3.5%

Incidentally 56% of the US's generating capacity is coal powered (can you say CO2 green house gases).

So the US produces 3.5% of its energy needs by wind, still behind Denmark 19%, Spain and Portugal 9%, ... and oh ya and Germany 6%.

If you want meaningful numbers you should look at energy consumption per person:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption)

You'll see the US consumes almost TWICE as much energy per person as Germany.

For environmental issues (like CO2 emissions) efficient energy use is at least as important as how you generate it.

The news here is not that the US is the biggest installed capacity, but the rapid growth of wind power. In Environmental terms both Germany and the US still only generate a small amount of their electricity by wind power (less than 10%).

So there's still a lot of work to be done to lessen the dependency on non renewable energy sources like coal etc...

Just my 2 cents.

Unfortunately, I think I saw it on that bastion of referenced material, CNBC.

This sort of thing at least shows trends:

http://www.allcountries.org/china_statistics/10_5_basic_conditions_of_urban_households.html

I think part of it is that household size is decreasing along with a cultural shift away from multi-generational living, and the other part is that quality of life is going up for tens of millions of people.

Perhaps for New York, New Jersey, much of Florida and California there's not much excuse. Anywhere else in the USA and it's not so clear to me.

• 56% of the US population lived in the 50 largest metropolitan areas (for 2006 this roughly translates into population over 1,000,000)
• 67% - in 100 largest metro areas(population over 500,000)
• 78% - in 200 largest metro areas (population over 200,000)
• 85% - in metro areas with population over 100,000

Perhaps for New York, New Jersey, much of Florida and California there's not much excuse. Anywhere else in the USA and it's not so clear to me.

• 56% of the US population lived in the 50 largest metropolitan areas (for 2006 this roughly translates into population over 1,000,000)
• 67% - in 100 largest metro areas(population over 500,000)
• 78% - in 200 largest metro areas (population over 200,000)
• 85% - in metro areas with population over 100,000

It would not surprise me if others have brought this up, but I have not seen it.

Is the target market for this thing really those kids we see on the Christian Children's Fund adds? If they are, I think a better goal for the worlds resources would be something like "A pair of shoes for every chilled" I would imagine that starving people in the Sudan, or wherever they end up distributing these things, will pass them of in a heartbeat if it gets them a meal for a day.

If the goal is to give computers to people who don't have them, a good place to start would be in developed and nearly developed countries. Right here in the US, 2000 census claims 42% of American households have a computer, and only 22% have internet access. That leaves millions of kids in American schools who don't have a computer. I think they, and those like them in other countries, should be the real targets of a project like this.

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what? (IF REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT) Would you call yourself a strong (REP/DEM) or a not very strong (REP/DEM)? (IF INDEPENDENT, OTHER [1966 AND LATER: OR NO PREFERENCE]:) Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican or Democratic party?

And further, they explain:

LEANERS - Codes 3,5: 'Leaners' have included (all years): A. Rs who responded 'independent' to party identification and who responded with the mention of a major party when asked if s/he felt closer to either major party; B. Rs who responded to the party identification question with the mention of a minor party but who said they felt closer to one major party; C. Rs who responded to the party identification with 'no preference' but who said they felt closer to one major party.

So the person self-identifies as an independent, and THEN says they lean one way or the other. In no case are people who, in your words, "identify as Democrats" included in these numbers. Look at the dataset if you like. Search the file anes_cdf_var.txt for the code VCF0301 to see the question asked, and the explanation of the data.

Also, this *is not Census data.* I will assume you just made an error and are not lying here, because the link you provided does not note this fact. But this data the Census Bureau provides does not come from the Census itself. Read the footnote (which was not on the link you provided, but is on the one I provided above). "Source: Center for Political Studies, University of Michi