my speakers are flat down to zero hz. i'm currently listening to a 10^-9 hz signal at high sound level. it's been playing for a month or two now, and the speaker cone appears to be somewhere in the vicinity of guam. i'm looking forward to when it enters the next quadrant of the cycle.
sealed box speakers drop off 12 db per octave below the resonance. vented/ported/passive radiators drop off 24 db per octave. just what exactly do your speakers look like that they have any response at 3 hz?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Moderate Alcohol Consumption Is Not Associated with Reduced All-cause Mortality.
"During 206,966 person-years of follow up, 7902 individuals died. No level of regular alcohol consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval in fully adjusted analyses was 1.02 (0.94-1.11) for 7 drinks/week, 1.14 (1.02-1.28) for 7 to 14 drinks/week, 1.13 (0.96-1.35) for 14 to 21 drinks/week, and 1.45 (1.16-1.81) for 21 drinks/week.
CONCLUSIONS:
Moderate alcohol consumption is not associated with reduced all-cause mortality in older adults. The previously observed association may have been due to residual confounding."
graphing that out, the significance of that 7-14 point is pretty sketchy, given that the 14-21 is not significant bu a greater margin. if you want to be honest, the results state that you should drink 7 or less, or 14-21, but not 7-14 drinks per week. if you're going to start smoothing the curve, if you make it linear it's more accurate to say the difference is insignificant below 10 units or so; or even more accurate to suggest that the curve looks like it depends on the cube of the alcohol consumption, not linear. which is not unreasonable, given the complexity of the situation.
The exact quantity of a pint isn't exactly the most important detail, the alcoholic volume of the drink makes more of a difference. That's why it's done in units (1 unit = 10ml of alcohol e.g. a 25ml single measure of a 40% spirit is 1 unit).
Bartender, give me a unit! In fact, make it a double!
That is a classic justification mechanism for drunks in denial: Trying to find some "beneficial" slant for drinking.
Drinking makes you lazy and lethargic, and not just at the times that you are drinking. If you drink regularly, in general you will be less active, have less drive and have less willpower. If you didn't drink (and provided you didn't have some other unhealthy habit), you would be much more active and in much better shape, both physically and mentally.
take note that historically, public water supplies have not always been healthy, and that beer has been a significant source of B vitamins and other nutrients for some populations while wine has been a significant source of fruit consumption for others
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
More likely a lot of the light-to-moderate drinking crowd is going out for casual social drinking, and some of the people with less consumption are doing so because they don't get out much.
Staying home all the time is bad for your health.
one question is the role of "no drinking ever" folks in the model. whereas light drinking and even very seldom drinking are normal, folks who never drink include people who live a super healthy lifestyle, people who are sick and on various drugs which force them to avoid alcohol, people who are former alcoholics and now clean and sober, people have cognitive problems that cause them to decide to never drink, people who are normal and just don't like to drink, people who, as you say, are socially isolated (not healthy in general), and also people who drink so much that they feel the need to lie about it. as these groups all have different risk profiles, probably, what the bottom end of your dose/response curve looks like is going to depend on the particular percentages of these various types who appear in your study.
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
the alcohol protective effect on cardiovascular disease has always been small, but has been so persistent in studies that it was hard to dismiss. plus there is a plausible mechanism in that small alcohol consumption lowers your LDL levels. however the latest studies which assign the positive effect out to correlated factors happen to arrive at a time when we're less convinced of the whole cholesterol involvement in cardiovascular disease. witness the fall of niacin from grace; it does even better than alcohol and improving your cholesterol and lipid profiles but apparently doesn't improve mortality at all.
ironically, the same people who would dismiss the alcohol is harmful findings are likely to have also dismissed the cholesterol is harmful findings that justified alcohol being protective in the first place.
Yea and even if i would die a bit sooner. At least i am having fun before i die. It is like all those gym bunnies convinced they are going to look great and live forever. They don't even statistically live longer than people like me, and waste half their life eating boring food and spending huge amounts of time at the gym.
a pint a day is fun. drinking until you puke and waking up with a hangover is less fun, unless you do have a problem. the line in between is a bit fuzzy.
That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following:
1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality
1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics.
2) Alcohol improves on some health markers
2b) But makes others worse.
2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
the protective effects of alcohol on circulatory disease has always been small, and arguably an artifact of being unable statistically to separate out all other correlated factors, whether lifestyle of moderate drinkers vs nondrinkers vs heavy drinkers, or the actual delivery of alcohol (wine and beer containing lots of other active compounds than alcohol; tannins, phenols, etc.) but it has up till now been relatively consistently found.
condensing a large volume of studies, these guys find the protective effect is less than the usual estimate. https://www.gov.uk/government/... and thus the british government is ethically required to publicize the warning
and of course there are a lot of other things involved, diet maybe, genetics certainly, etc etc etc
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
That is where one can be mislead by the article, as they are talking about an increase in health problems, not an increase in mortality. Specifically they talk about cancers, which in most cases are seen very late in life. So, basically, you have a small increase in added health issues right before you die.
cancers are seen late in life, because they tend to kill you. but yeah, they do typically take decades to develop. but the point is, that the more you irritate tissue, i.e. pouring substantial volumes of alcohol down your throat into your stomach on a constant basis, the sooner cancer will develop.
"We never eat fruitcake because it has rum.
And one little bit makes a man like a bum.
Now can you imagine a sorrier sight
Than a man eating fruitcake until he gets tight?"
There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits./s
Do you have a citation for that? The natural reason for it to vary by gender is because men are heavier than women, but in that case you're still better off giving both genders the same advice and giving them the option to scale by body mass. I don't see any other reason why men and women of the same size should have different alcohol recommendations.
This article contradicts you and suggests this is a case of the guidelines catching up with the science and medical advice.
Also: women typically have higher percentages of body fat, meaning that for the same overall weight, women have a smaller volume of water to dilute the alcohol and end up with a higher concentration. http://www.builtlean.com/2010/...
Women have lower levels of alcohol dehydrogenase than men in youth but higher in middle age. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.o...
There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits./s
Right... like the fact that men are larger than women has no effect on the volume of alcohol they can consume vs. their blood concentration... Isn't there a conspiracy site somewhere that you should be studying?
...how about a gun that stores a photo of what it shoots. Then classify all those images and make a decision about smart guns?
I don't want the government watching who I murder!
Let's just jump to the next level of smart gun; you have to explain to it what you want to shoot and why, and it thinks it over. And before it fires, it tries to talk it over with the intended target to see if it can't be settled in a less violent fashion.
Consider the new federal mandate that new cars have backup cameras (that's in place, coming soon to all cars, and their price tags). Imagine that new mandate meant that with the new feature of a backup camera, the government decided that for your own safety, you were no longer allowed to roll down your windows or more your head out of some restraint that would take your eyes off of the forward view. Whatever. Point being: imagine a mandate for a new layer of technology that makes the previous simpler methods no longer viable. Some people wouldn't want a car that they can no longer put in reverse if a damaged sensor on the rear bumper tells the car's computer that it shouldn't be allowed to back up. Yes, it's an analogy. Relax about the details.
Imagine a car you can't start without it properly reading your fingerprints or you having your magic coded ring on you. Losing consciousness with severe chest pain and need a casual acquaintance to hop in the driver's seat of your smart-ignition car and hustle you to the hospital? Too bad. Want your friend to run to your desk drawer to grab and possibly use your smart-safety firearm in an emergency? Or use it yourself with a burned or wet fingertip, your gloves on, etc? Too bad.
None of that would matter except for laws in some places that say that as soon as one of these "smart" guns is made available for sale, no other type of gun can ever be sold again.
Imagine a house that you can't enter without some sort of metallic token shaped into a specific pattern that has to be inserted into a specific receptacle that mechanically disables the locking functions on the door.
Imagine a car you can't start without having a similar device that you have to insert before it operates.
In either case, if you should lose or damage your little metal token, or if the receiver portion fails to operate correctly, the failure to function could be fatal in certain circumstances.
> Special ring? So much for swimming, showering, or any other activity you don't want to expose electronic to.
I know, it's horrible that 70% of the Earth's surface is a zone where electronics can't be used at all. Those poor bastards sailing the seas with their handheld sextants, mapping out courses with a compass and paper. If only there was some way to seal electronics in some sort of waterproof enclosure that was still permeable to radio waves. Maybe even have those same electronics energized by the device in question, like some sort of Radio Frequency IDentification tag that has no internal power source.
Naaah. That's crazy talk.
And then when you want to dispose of the gun, you have to shlep the stupid ring all the way to Mount Doom and throw it in the fires.
People don't oppose the technology in theory, they oppose the fact that New Jersey had a law mandating the sale of only smart guns after one goes on sale anywhere in the country. This is basically a huge gun ban in disguise, which is why it was opposed.
Because everybody in the US is so worried about the freedoms of New Jersey citizens?
A firearm is, at it's heart, a mechanical device; there is no way around that, so no electronic means of preventing a gun from firing can be devised that someone else isn't going to find a way to defeat. A firearm has to be reliable, and the best way to accomplish that is to keep it as simple as possible. Adding a bunch of electronics to it that get in the way of the firearms' primary function is the antithesis of all that, and in the end will just make them less useful and less reliable for the law-abiding and law-enforcing people who need to use them. Also, do they really think that all this high-concept crap is going to prevent anyone outside the U.S. from producing 'traditional' firearms? Also, 3D printing technology is ramping up quickly, now with the capability of printing in metals; how long do you think it'll be before a 3D-printed handgun is equivalent to and virtually indistinguishable from a traditionally manufactured handgun?
I'm not even a gun owner, and even I say that all this that Obama and others are trying to do to further limit firearm ownership and to create more roadblocks to firearm ownership will do nothing but make life more difficult (and dangerous) for peaceful, law-abiding people. Enforce the current set of laws better, and do a better job identifying people with mental illnesses and criminal intent before they get their hands on weapons and go around shooting people.
Not clear to me that arguing that smart guns will be unpopular because they are unreliable and that people will be able to 3D print their own guns at home in the same post isn't shooting yourself in the foot. Anyway, anybody who really wants to can machine a gun at home nowadays. (not what is meant by "machine gun", it turns out).
Slashdot Mirror
my speakers are flat down to zero hz. i'm currently listening to a 10^-9 hz signal at high sound level. it's been playing for a month or two now, and the speaker cone appears to be somewhere in the vicinity of guam. i'm looking forward to when it enters the next quadrant of the cycle.
sealed box speakers drop off 12 db per octave below the resonance. vented/ported/passive radiators drop off 24 db per octave. just what exactly do your speakers look like that they have any response at 3 hz?
I was there. There were a lot of them.
Deep Purple was great back then (1971?). Fast forward 30 years and people start hearing them again. I thought: "What the...?!?"
There are others, just do a little research... a good start is "Yes".
beatles albums. mastered masterfully.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... Moderate Alcohol Consumption Is Not Associated with Reduced All-cause Mortality. "During 206,966 person-years of follow up, 7902 individuals died. No level of regular alcohol consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval in fully adjusted analyses was 1.02 (0.94-1.11) for 7 drinks/week, 1.14 (1.02-1.28) for 7 to 14 drinks/week, 1.13 (0.96-1.35) for 14 to 21 drinks/week, and 1.45 (1.16-1.81) for 21 drinks/week. CONCLUSIONS:
Moderate alcohol consumption is not associated with reduced all-cause mortality in older adults. The previously observed association may have been due to residual confounding."
graphing that out, the significance of that 7-14 point is pretty sketchy, given that the 14-21 is not significant bu a greater margin.
if you want to be honest, the results state that you should drink 7 or less, or 14-21, but not 7-14 drinks per week. if you're going to start smoothing the curve, if you make it linear it's more accurate to say the difference is insignificant below 10 units or so; or even more accurate to suggest that the curve looks like it depends on the cube of the alcohol consumption, not linear. which is not unreasonable, given the complexity of the situation.
The exact quantity of a pint isn't exactly the most important detail, the alcoholic volume of the drink makes more of a difference. That's why it's done in units (1 unit = 10ml of alcohol e.g. a 25ml single measure of a 40% spirit is 1 unit).
Bartender, give me a unit! In fact, make it a double!
And so you should be weeping. The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American beer.
The same is true for the women too.
The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American women ???? Yeah, I guess that is true.
True, All we get is the Guinness Crap here, Or that horrific pisswater called Carling from GB.
now Beamish, that is a proper good pint with real flavor.
pretty easy to get lots of good imported beers all over the US these days, not to mention domestic microbrews.
That is a classic justification mechanism for drunks in denial: Trying to find some "beneficial" slant for drinking.
Drinking makes you lazy and lethargic, and not just at the times that you are drinking. If you drink regularly, in general you will be less active, have less drive and have less willpower. If you didn't drink (and provided you didn't have some other unhealthy habit), you would be much more active and in much better shape, both physically and mentally.
take note that historically, public water supplies have not always been healthy, and that beer has been a significant source of B vitamins and other nutrients for some populations while wine has been a significant source of fruit consumption for others
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
More likely a lot of the light-to-moderate drinking crowd is going out for casual social drinking, and some of the people with less consumption are doing so because they don't get out much.
Staying home all the time is bad for your health.
one question is the role of "no drinking ever" folks in the model. whereas light drinking and even very seldom drinking are normal, folks who never drink include people who live a super healthy lifestyle, people who are sick and on various drugs which force them to avoid alcohol, people who are former alcoholics and now clean and sober, people have cognitive problems that cause them to decide to never drink, people who are normal and just don't like to drink, people who, as you say, are socially isolated (not healthy in general), and also people who drink so much that they feel the need to lie about it. as these groups all have different risk profiles, probably, what the bottom end of your dose/response curve looks like is going to depend on the particular percentages of these various types who appear in your study.
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
the alcohol protective effect on cardiovascular disease has always been small, but has been so persistent in studies that it was hard to dismiss. plus there is a plausible mechanism in that small alcohol consumption lowers your LDL levels. however the latest studies which assign the positive effect out to correlated factors happen to arrive at a time when we're less convinced of the whole cholesterol involvement in cardiovascular disease. witness the fall of niacin from grace; it does even better than alcohol and improving your cholesterol and lipid profiles but apparently doesn't improve mortality at all. ironically, the same people who would dismiss the alcohol is harmful findings are likely to have also dismissed the cholesterol is harmful findings that justified alcohol being protective in the first place.
Yea and even if i would die a bit sooner. At least i am having fun before i die. It is like all those gym bunnies convinced they are going to look great and live forever. They don't even statistically live longer than people like me, and waste half their life eating boring food and spending huge amounts of time at the gym.
a pint a day is fun. drinking until you puke and waking up with a hangover is less fun, unless you do have a problem. the line in between is a bit fuzzy.
That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following: 1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality 1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics. 2) Alcohol improves on some health markers 2b) But makes others worse. 2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
the protective effects of alcohol on circulatory disease has always been small, and arguably an artifact of being unable statistically to separate out all other correlated factors, whether lifestyle of moderate drinkers vs nondrinkers vs heavy drinkers, or the actual delivery of alcohol (wine and beer containing lots of other active compounds than alcohol; tannins, phenols, etc.) but it has up till now been relatively consistently found.
condensing a large volume of studies, these guys find the protective effect is less than the usual estimate. https://www.gov.uk/government/... and thus the british government is ethically required to publicize the warning
and of course there are a lot of other things involved, diet maybe, genetics certainly, etc etc etc
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
That is where one can be mislead by the article, as they are talking about an increase in health problems, not an increase in mortality. Specifically they talk about cancers, which in most cases are seen very late in life. So, basically, you have a small increase in added health issues right before you die.
cancers are seen late in life, because they tend to kill you. but yeah, they do typically take decades to develop. but the point is, that the more you irritate tissue, i.e. pouring substantial volumes of alcohol down your throat into your stomach on a constant basis, the sooner cancer will develop.
Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated. Ask yourself why you get drunk.
It is possible to drink without getting drunk
"I don't care
What the people are thinkin'
I ain't drunk
I'm just drinkin'"
"We never eat fruitcake because it has rum.
And one little bit makes a man like a bum.
Now can you imagine a sorrier sight
Than a man eating fruitcake until he gets tight?"
Everything causes cancer. Fuck em. I'd rather lose 10 years and enjoy life than gain 10 years and hate it.
get cancer. you'll enjoy it.
There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s
Do you have a citation for that? The natural reason for it to vary by gender is because men are heavier than women, but in that case you're still better off giving both genders the same advice and giving them the option to scale by body mass. I don't see any other reason why men and women of the same size should have different alcohol recommendations.
This article contradicts you and suggests this is a case of the guidelines catching up with the science and medical advice.
Also: women typically have higher percentages of body fat, meaning that for the same overall weight, women have a smaller volume of water to dilute the alcohol and end up with a higher concentration. http://www.builtlean.com/2010/... Women have lower levels of alcohol dehydrogenase than men in youth but higher in middle age. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.o...
There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s
Right... like the fact that men are larger than women has no effect on the volume of alcohol they can consume vs. their blood concentration... Isn't there a conspiracy site somewhere that you should be studying?
"Wayne Lapierre States that Programming all Firearms with Asimov's Three Laws was Big Mistake"
...how about a gun that stores a photo of what it shoots. Then classify all those images and make a decision about smart guns?
I don't want the government watching who I murder!
Let's just jump to the next level of smart gun; you have to explain to it what you want to shoot and why, and it thinks it over. And before it fires, it tries to talk it over with the intended target to see if it can't be settled in a less violent fashion.
Consider the new federal mandate that new cars have backup cameras (that's in place, coming soon to all cars, and their price tags). Imagine that new mandate meant that with the new feature of a backup camera, the government decided that for your own safety, you were no longer allowed to roll down your windows or more your head out of some restraint that would take your eyes off of the forward view. Whatever. Point being: imagine a mandate for a new layer of technology that makes the previous simpler methods no longer viable. Some people wouldn't want a car that they can no longer put in reverse if a damaged sensor on the rear bumper tells the car's computer that it shouldn't be allowed to back up. Yes, it's an analogy. Relax about the details. Imagine a car you can't start without it properly reading your fingerprints or you having your magic coded ring on you. Losing consciousness with severe chest pain and need a casual acquaintance to hop in the driver's seat of your smart-ignition car and hustle you to the hospital? Too bad. Want your friend to run to your desk drawer to grab and possibly use your smart-safety firearm in an emergency? Or use it yourself with a burned or wet fingertip, your gloves on, etc? Too bad. None of that would matter except for laws in some places that say that as soon as one of these "smart" guns is made available for sale, no other type of gun can ever be sold again.
Imagine a house that you can't enter without some sort of metallic token shaped into a specific pattern that has to be inserted into a specific receptacle that mechanically disables the locking functions on the door.
Imagine a car you can't start without having a similar device that you have to insert before it operates.
In either case, if you should lose or damage your little metal token, or if the receiver portion fails to operate correctly, the failure to function could be fatal in certain circumstances.
> Special ring? So much for swimming, showering, or any other activity you don't want to expose electronic to.
I know, it's horrible that 70% of the Earth's surface is a zone where electronics can't be used at all. Those poor bastards sailing the seas with their handheld sextants, mapping out courses with a compass and paper. If only there was some way to seal electronics in some sort of waterproof enclosure that was still permeable to radio waves. Maybe even have those same electronics energized by the device in question, like some sort of Radio Frequency IDentification tag that has no internal power source.
Naaah. That's crazy talk.
And then when you want to dispose of the gun, you have to shlep the stupid ring all the way to Mount Doom and throw it in the fires.
Honestly that sounds like New Jersey's problem, so why should I care.
They went and instituted a moronic law, they can deal with the fallout.
New Jersey is the only state (I believe) which currently outlaws self-serve gas stations. They are the ground zero of moronic laws.
People don't oppose the technology in theory, they oppose the fact that New Jersey had a law mandating the sale of only smart guns after one goes on sale anywhere in the country. This is basically a huge gun ban in disguise, which is why it was opposed.
Because everybody in the US is so worried about the freedoms of New Jersey citizens?
A firearm is, at it's heart, a mechanical device; there is no way around that, so no electronic means of preventing a gun from firing can be devised that someone else isn't going to find a way to defeat. A firearm has to be reliable, and the best way to accomplish that is to keep it as simple as possible. Adding a bunch of electronics to it that get in the way of the firearms' primary function is the antithesis of all that, and in the end will just make them less useful and less reliable for the law-abiding and law-enforcing people who need to use them. Also, do they really think that all this high-concept crap is going to prevent anyone outside the U.S. from producing 'traditional' firearms? Also, 3D printing technology is ramping up quickly, now with the capability of printing in metals; how long do you think it'll be before a 3D-printed handgun is equivalent to and virtually indistinguishable from a traditionally manufactured handgun? I'm not even a gun owner, and even I say that all this that Obama and others are trying to do to further limit firearm ownership and to create more roadblocks to firearm ownership will do nothing but make life more difficult (and dangerous) for peaceful, law-abiding people. Enforce the current set of laws better, and do a better job identifying people with mental illnesses and criminal intent before they get their hands on weapons and go around shooting people.
Not clear to me that arguing that smart guns will be unpopular because they are unreliable and that people will be able to 3D print their own guns at home in the same post isn't shooting yourself in the foot.
Anyway, anybody who really wants to can machine a gun at home nowadays. (not what is meant by "machine gun", it turns out).