Slashdot Mirror

"The odds start at close to 50% risk for divorce in the first place, for anyone."

This simply isn't true, if it were, then divorce rates would tend towards this value in every country, but they simply do not. Obviously many social factors come in to play. You're far less likely to get divorced if you're Italian for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography

You've not provided any source whatsoever for any of your claims either which makes your argument suspicious, and a quick Google has brought up some equally silly statistics:

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/21-factors-may-increase-risk-divorce

One interesting key theme there though is those who are highly intelligent (which both Zuckerberg and his wife are) are the least likely groups to get a divorce which demonstrates my point that you can try and chip away at your 50% starting point (if even that was correct) with various stats here and there (even though combined with other factors they may have different outcomes) but the fact that they have already been a couple for quite some time, through some major upheavals in both their lives, coupled with the fact they're both smart, means that these combined things may mean they're a strong enough couple to drive a steamroller right through your other stats.

I'd wager people who are smart, and who have been able to get through such a major upheaval as these two went through without trouble have a far higher chance of staying together - and that's really the point here, if these two are a particularly unique subset, which, given their circumstances, they absolutely are (not many people make billions in their 20s) then the average becomes meaningless - these aren't average people, living a stereotypical lifestyle, by any measure.

The only statistic that would give a reasonable chance of determining the success of this particular marriage would be one that gives the average for their combined set of fairly unique circumstances, but you don't have that, so you've no idea. You can't simply choose an arbitrary starting point and take a number of disjoint statistics to arbitrarily chip away at that point and expect to come to any realistic or informed conclusion, it just doesn't work like that.

http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/2/303.short
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/75/34550/fda-finds-penicillin-drug-abuse-ny-farm-animals.html

Ok, I'll bite... Mountain Dew increases blood pressure via caffeine...

It ain't just the caffeine

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12597970
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/cut-soft-drink-consumption-reduce-blood-pressure.html

Not sure if he will, but I'd be happy to oblige.

Abra Kadabra!

http://covertheuninsured.org/content/children

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/cdc-number-americans-without-health-insurance-coverage-increases

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/deep-cuts-health-care-services-uk
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/140810
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295111
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html?ITO=1490

The government and the pharmcos got a law passed to exempt themselves from any responsibility from adverse reactions to the current swine flu vaccines. In short, they already passed a law saying they can't get sued over it, no matter what happens to you. As such, I think that is good enough reason to reject mandatory forced vaccinations. If people think it is safe and effective, even though the government wants no part in responsibility, ie, they don't really trust it themselves legally, let them take the shot. If they trusted it, there would be no need for the new law, now would there be?

reference: http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/39/32326/swine-flu-vaccine-makers-granted-legal-immunity.html

It seems like more and more scientists are moving away from the beta amyloid plaque buildup hypthesis. While it seemed like a great lead, people who die with no symptoms of dementia or Alzheimer's Disease can still have a buildup of beta amyloid plaque as massive as the person who did die of Alzheimer's.

Recent research found that beta amyloid dimers were toxic in a laboratory model of Alzheimer's disease. Monomers, trimers, and larger aggregates, as well as plaque cores were not toxic.

I have my popcorn ready.

I wouldn't advise it. Stick to pretzels.