Actually I don't think sex discrimination laws often cover things like this. Generally companies are allowed to do business with whoever they want to. That notwithstanding, I fail to see how a company not insuring males is supposed to prove that companies are overcharging males. If anything it proves the opposite -- that males are too much of a risk to do business with.
And you're right, statistics can often be twisted in any way desired. But here's some anecdotal evidence to show that young males are more of a risk. When I was in high school, I was in a car when the driver (male) ran somebody off the road by blowing through a stop sign that he damned well knew was there. I (male) used to drive 75mph even when the road was covered with snow. I've been in cars with guys from college going 120mph. I was in a car when a guy tried taking a left turn at 60mph and nearly flipped the car. But I've never been in a situation that comes anywhere CLOSE to these (and others I haven't mentioned) when I've been in the car with a girl driving. Don't get me wrong, I've ridden with a lot of shitty drivers that were female -- but none of them were reckless. And that's the difference.
But if males are no more of a risk, as you assert, then all the insurance companies must be in on a big conspiracy to overcharge males. Do you honestly believe that one insurance company wouldn't break from the conspiracy and start to charge males less, thus suddenly getting the business of every male on the planet?
I know it's easy to look at your expensive insurance and think you're getting screwed, because you are getting screwed. But at some point, you'll realize that you're getting screwed because there are a lot of young (and not-so-young) guys out there that drive as if they're invincible, and not because the entire insurance industry is out to get you.
The problem for insurrance companies is that crumple zones and the like TRADE vehicle damage for human damage. The low-speed destruction of bumpers, fenders, hoods, and entire engine compartments mean that these cars are a "total loss" much more frequently.
Do you have something to back up the assertion that insurance companies would trade human damage for vehicle damage? Otherwise, I call BS. Medical costs are FAR more expensive than vehicle damage. A totalled car will cost what, a maximum of a couple tens of thousands of dollars to replace. An injured person's medical costs could easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And there could potentially be multiple people in the car. For instance, my car was worth $15,000 new. My bodily injury limits go up to $300,000 per accident. Which do you think the insurance company would rather pay?
As much as people villainize the insurance industry, they are generally very good at promoting things that improve automobile safety.
As for the mostly males involved in crashes, it's the same statistical nonsense as mostly red cars are involved in crashes. It's simply because there are more males on the road to be driving dangerously. Insurance for me (18yo Male, learning to drive) is phenominal even on a low power car.
Your argument doesn't even make sense. If it were true that males are involved in more crashes only because there are more males driving, then there would be no difference in insurance rates between males and females because the extra number of males paying into the pool would make up for the additional number of crashes. Since auto insurance is a competitive industry, I find it hard to believe that all insurers are charging males more just as a dirty trick.
In reality, the crashes females are involved in tend to be fender-benders. The crashes males are involved in are more likely to be catastrophic high-speed collisions caused by driving like an idiot. As they get older and more mature, males tend to drive less like idiots, but some people never grow out of it (When I was in college the 50-year-old father of one of my friends managed to kill himself by driving his Corvette down a country road at 100+mph and hitting not one but two telephone poles after the car went airborne).
And to go a bit off-topic, are there actually people who do significant TV watching via over-the-air analog broadcasts?
I don't get cable or satellite, and where I am (Rochester, NY) I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS over the air. There are a couple others I can get of bad quality that I wouldn't watch anyway. Most of the stuff I watch is on those networks anyway, and I'm unwilling to pay $50+ a month for cable or whatever satellite costs nowadays. A number of people I know just have OTA TV too. No I'm not some bitter old man; I'm 25, and the people I know w/out cable or satellite are my age as well. And yes, I do make enough to afford it.
From tfa: the sale of the spectrum would generate approximately $10b in revenue. The net gain ($10b - $1.5b) would still be a revenue influx of $8.5b. This sounds like a (surprisingly) fair and mutually beneficial deal.
It's a pretty big assumption that the only cost associated with the analog -> digital switchover is the vouchers. My guess is that the government has as of today already spent far more than $10B, even before taking into account the anticipated cost of the vouchers.
Proof that a +5 comment from a low UID means absolutely nothing.
165000 is low?
Re:GTK is alright...but no raves
on
Why Use GTK+?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
not to mention the fact that width and height will be determined automagically... His code specified the height, width
I know it differs from what the OP asked for, but how is automatically determining width and height a bad thing? To prove my point, I encourage you to give a specific size for your dialog box and then come back and tell me how it looks when you change your default font to something that a person with vision problems would use. Dynamically computing dialog sizes is A Good Thing(TM).
That's why I have my Caps Lock remapped to be Control, a la Unix-style keyboards. Makes it a heck of a lot easier to hit control, since I only need to move my pinky a bit to the left (I've never used the right control key). Whenever I type on somebody else's computer, after accidentally hitting caps-lock a few times of course, I can't believe how difficult it is to reach for the Control key in it's "original" place.
You know what I'd like to see? Where's the top 10 search keywords for Google Images?
They sort of have what you're looking for at the bottom of their weekly zeitgeist page.
However, they seem to be a bit confused. They actually believe that people using the query "hummer" are looking for pictures of the car.
As a programmer, without a masters, I made $40k a year. Does it sound like your daughter couldn't make more with a degree in marketing or accounting?
Interesting... with a bachelor's in CS, after working for about 3 years full-time, I make between $65k and 70k. My girlfriend, who has a bachelor's in accounting, has worked full-time for 2 years, and she makes between $40 and 45k. As for hours, I invariably work 40 hours a week, except for maybe two or three weeks a year that I work 45 or so. She works between 40 and 45 hours a week all year, except for busy season, when she works between 55 and 60 hours a week, including Saturdays. Needless to say she's looking to get out of public accounting, and at the moment is looking for an auditing job with the state.
Re: This highlights the actual problem, which is..
on
Microsoft Ends IE for Mac
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
While that's all very standards compliant, it doesn't always generate the best usability result. Stop for a minute and realise that it's not possible to implement the nice user interface of Google maps without Javascript, for example. Sure, Google maps works without Javascript, but the interface isn't nearly as slick.
Let's see, between my bank, credit cards, 401(k), and IRA, all of which I access through the web, I can't think of a single time where I wished their interface was "more slick". All I want is the numbers, organized in a fashion that is easy to understand. As the GP said, it's one thing when you're trying to do something new and show off, a la Google maps. But for a financial site, which was the root of this discussion? I don't see a need, and in fact, I think that trying to make the UI more slick actually decreases the usability.
The known oil resources are expected to last for 150 years with the current pace of burning.
And how much oil will we be pumping from the ground 149 years from now, just before all the resources are exhausted? A few barrels here and there? We're not going to continue to pump at our current rate and then suddenly hit the bottom of the barrel, so to speak. The amount we are able to pump will be in decline long before the resource is exhausted.
Moving distribution of goods off of our highways and onto railroads is another very effective way to save fuel. This has the added benefit that MOST of the wear and tear on our hiways will be reduced and traveling will be far more pleasant for the light vehicals.
It's not just the benefit of pleasant driving. Think of how much oil is used in asphalt. Not to mention how much is used by the construction vehicles themselves.
Long-distance freight traffic travelling by truck is ridiculous; it should all be done by railroad.
Some of the above assumes, of course, that the GP was referring to an "isolated system" when he said "completely closed system". The remainder about energy in the car being conserved holds in any event.
Either you're trolling, you don't thoroughly understand conservation of energy, or the system as you're imagining it is not in fact closed. Your teachers were right: energy and mass are constant within a closed system. And if you think about it, that's still true here. Energy isn't being created, it's simply changing forms from heat to kinetic energy. In this sense, both the steam engine and the ICE do the exact same thing: convert heat to KE. It's just that the ICE is using burning gasoline as a heat source, while the steam engine is using the ICE as a heat source.
That is NEVER an assumption -- in fact I believe the counter-fact to be true. In a free market, every transaction is based on the assumption that both parties feel they are profiting from the transaction.
Wrong. Perfect and complete information is one of the assumptions of a perfectly competitive market.
> I still prefer to buy from companies I or my friends have
> dealt with.
Of course, if you had followed that strictly 100% of the time, you'd never have bought from anyone. For any given company that you do business with, there had to be a first time.
(a) He said "I prefer to by from" not "I only buy from".
(b) He never said that his friends won't buy from a company without similar prior knowledge.
To be pedantic, he did not change the focusing distance, he moved the lens closer to the object. Focusing distance is properly measured from the sensor to the object, not from the front of the lens.
Are you saying that an extension tube doesn't change the minimum focus distance of a lens? Because that's completely wrong: extension tubes drastically shorten a lens's minimum focus distance (by far more than the length of the tube itself), at the expense of the ability to focus at infinity.
Even if you have a large cell phone plan, why do you want even one minute wasted on this nonsense?
Because all of my friends have the same cell company that I do. So anybody I call, it doesn't cost me any minutes. And with rollover, I have several thousand minutes to use right now. I couldn't care less about wasting 15, or even a few hundred, on any telemarketer that called me on my cell phone.
Generally when one is joining a sound of a vowel and a consonant, we use a instead of an. As in, "There is no such thing as a XXX rating" (since I have no idea why you'd say anything other than triple-X).
What, you mean like possibly enunciating each X individually? As in "there is no such thing as an ecks ecks ecks rating."
Another poster mentioned a couple arguments as to how your first two examples do affect others.
In addition to this, all three of your examples prevent an undue burden on the healthcare system, a burden which would result in higher costs for all of us either through our own medical insurance premiums or through government spending that eventually gets passed back to the taxpayer. As for the motorcycle helmet law, if you wish to sign a waiver stating that in the event of severe head trauma that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, you agree to foot the bill in full (if you have insurance) or waive the hospital's responsibility to treat you (if you don't have insurance or are unable to pay the bill), then go for it. Unfortunately, no such waiver would ever be held conscionable by the courts, so the only alternative is to make helmet use the law.
I never said there were positively-marketed female scientists. I said that in my experience, pop culture portrays scientists and mathematicians as nerdy, unattractive types in general.
No, I didn't grow up with a sister. Was I, a male, "in gifted"? Yes. Was I, a male, belittled and harassed for it? Yes. I'll ask the same question you did, why didn't pop culture un-geek you but it did your sister? Your answer is that male scientists are generally portrayed positively in pop culture, but I don't think they are. Take Beakman's World, for example, a show that is supposed to get kids interested in science. Why, then, not make the scientist look like a normal person (as most scientists are), instead of a stereotypical nerd?
I'd also like to say that even though scientists on TV are usually providing a positive role (for example, supporting the lead character by providing scientific assistance), they are still usually portrayed as nerdy, socially inept types. Think the Lone Gunmen -- they do a valuable service to the good-looking Mulder. Perhaps boys look at the service, and girls look at the nerdy unattractiveness? I don't know.
All kidding aside, our culture --pop culture or not-- predisposes girls against science and especially math.
It seems as though pop culture is pretty anti-science and anti-math across the board, not just towards females. Sorry, but for how much I hear the tired cliche that "smart is sexy" just about everything I've ever seen on TV or in the movies equates smart with nerdiness, and nerdiness with unattractiveness. My experiences with real people while growing up mirrored this. So why do guys still go into these fields but girls don't?
If something like this is going on, then the implications for prevention and treatment of the metastatic diseases are profoundly different from the allopathic approach-- rather than our multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry going off in a search for a new patentable drug, we would be better served by exploring physiotherapies, like perhaps intensive bicycle riding (think Lance Armstrong, and his success in fighting cancer).
You speak as if exercise will be a replacement for pharmaceutical-based solutions. The fact that Lance Armstrong, surely one of the most physically-fit people on the planet, would have died without drug treatment should disprove that notion. That said, exercise does reduce the risk factor for certain cancers, sometimes significantly (just google for 'exercise cancer'). Future studies might show that more cancers are affected, or they might show that most cancers don't care if you exercise. Also, whether the decreased risk has anything to do with your theory, or if it's just that exercise generally makes a person healthier, or if it's some other reason, who knows.
But the benefit of exercise in reducing heart disease is already well-known, but that hasn't convinced Americans to even walk to the counter at McDonalds instead of using the drive-through, let alone get an appropriate amount of "real" exercise, even though heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S. and most of Europe. It would be interesting to see: if exercise were shown to be the "cure for cancer", would people actually get serious about exercising? I doubt it. People still do smoke even while knowing the lung cancer connection, after all. (Not that this is a reason not to pursue fitness-based prevention and/or treatment; it's just an observation)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I don't think sex discrimination laws often cover things like this. Generally companies are allowed to do business with whoever they want to. That notwithstanding, I fail to see how a company not insuring males is supposed to prove that companies are overcharging males. If anything it proves the opposite -- that males are too much of a risk to do business with.
And you're right, statistics can often be twisted in any way desired. But here's some anecdotal evidence to show that young males are more of a risk. When I was in high school, I was in a car when the driver (male) ran somebody off the road by blowing through a stop sign that he damned well knew was there. I (male) used to drive 75mph even when the road was covered with snow. I've been in cars with guys from college going 120mph. I was in a car when a guy tried taking a left turn at 60mph and nearly flipped the car. But I've never been in a situation that comes anywhere CLOSE to these (and others I haven't mentioned) when I've been in the car with a girl driving. Don't get me wrong, I've ridden with a lot of shitty drivers that were female -- but none of them were reckless. And that's the difference.
But if males are no more of a risk, as you assert, then all the insurance companies must be in on a big conspiracy to overcharge males. Do you honestly believe that one insurance company wouldn't break from the conspiracy and start to charge males less, thus suddenly getting the business of every male on the planet?
I know it's easy to look at your expensive insurance and think you're getting screwed, because you are getting screwed. But at some point, you'll realize that you're getting screwed because there are a lot of young (and not-so-young) guys out there that drive as if they're invincible, and not because the entire insurance industry is out to get you.
The problem for insurrance companies is that crumple zones and the like TRADE vehicle damage for human damage. The low-speed destruction of bumpers, fenders, hoods, and entire engine compartments mean that these cars are a "total loss" much more frequently.
Do you have something to back up the assertion that insurance companies would trade human damage for vehicle damage? Otherwise, I call BS. Medical costs are FAR more expensive than vehicle damage. A totalled car will cost what, a maximum of a couple tens of thousands of dollars to replace. An injured person's medical costs could easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And there could potentially be multiple people in the car. For instance, my car was worth $15,000 new. My bodily injury limits go up to $300,000 per accident. Which do you think the insurance company would rather pay?
As much as people villainize the insurance industry, they are generally very good at promoting things that improve automobile safety.
As for the mostly males involved in crashes, it's the same statistical nonsense as mostly red cars are involved in crashes. It's simply because there are more males on the road to be driving dangerously. Insurance for me (18yo Male, learning to drive) is phenominal even on a low power car.
Your argument doesn't even make sense. If it were true that males are involved in more crashes only because there are more males driving, then there would be no difference in insurance rates between males and females because the extra number of males paying into the pool would make up for the additional number of crashes. Since auto insurance is a competitive industry, I find it hard to believe that all insurers are charging males more just as a dirty trick.
In reality, the crashes females are involved in tend to be fender-benders. The crashes males are involved in are more likely to be catastrophic high-speed collisions caused by driving like an idiot. As they get older and more mature, males tend to drive less like idiots, but some people never grow out of it (When I was in college the 50-year-old father of one of my friends managed to kill himself by driving his Corvette down a country road at 100+mph and hitting not one but two telephone poles after the car went airborne).
And to go a bit off-topic, are there actually people who do significant TV watching via over-the-air analog broadcasts?
I don't get cable or satellite, and where I am (Rochester, NY) I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS over the air. There are a couple others I can get of bad quality that I wouldn't watch anyway. Most of the stuff I watch is on those networks anyway, and I'm unwilling to pay $50+ a month for cable or whatever satellite costs nowadays. A number of people I know just have OTA TV too. No I'm not some bitter old man; I'm 25, and the people I know w/out cable or satellite are my age as well. And yes, I do make enough to afford it.
From tfa: the sale of the spectrum would generate approximately $10b in revenue. The net gain ($10b - $1.5b) would still be a revenue influx of $8.5b. This sounds like a (surprisingly) fair and mutually beneficial deal.
It's a pretty big assumption that the only cost associated with the analog -> digital switchover is the vouchers. My guess is that the government has as of today already spent far more than $10B, even before taking into account the anticipated cost of the vouchers.
Proof that a +5 comment from a low UID means absolutely nothing.
165000 is low?
not to mention the fact that width and height will be determined automagically ... His code specified the height, width
I know it differs from what the OP asked for, but how is automatically determining width and height a bad thing? To prove my point, I encourage you to give a specific size for your dialog box and then come back and tell me how it looks when you change your default font to something that a person with vision problems would use. Dynamically computing dialog sizes is A Good Thing(TM).
That's why I have my Caps Lock remapped to be Control, a la Unix-style keyboards. Makes it a heck of a lot easier to hit control, since I only need to move my pinky a bit to the left (I've never used the right control key). Whenever I type on somebody else's computer, after accidentally hitting caps-lock a few times of course, I can't believe how difficult it is to reach for the Control key in it's "original" place.
You know what I'd like to see? Where's the top 10 search keywords for Google Images?
They sort of have what you're looking for at the bottom of their weekly zeitgeist page. However, they seem to be a bit confused. They actually believe that people using the query "hummer" are looking for pictures of the car.
As a programmer, without a masters, I made $40k a year. Does it sound like your daughter couldn't make more with a degree in marketing or accounting?
Interesting... with a bachelor's in CS, after working for about 3 years full-time, I make between $65k and 70k. My girlfriend, who has a bachelor's in accounting, has worked full-time for 2 years, and she makes between $40 and 45k. As for hours, I invariably work 40 hours a week, except for maybe two or three weeks a year that I work 45 or so. She works between 40 and 45 hours a week all year, except for busy season, when she works between 55 and 60 hours a week, including Saturdays. Needless to say she's looking to get out of public accounting, and at the moment is looking for an auditing job with the state.
While that's all very standards compliant, it doesn't always generate the best usability result. Stop for a minute and realise that it's not possible to implement the nice user interface of Google maps without Javascript, for example. Sure, Google maps works without Javascript, but the interface isn't nearly as slick.
Let's see, between my bank, credit cards, 401(k), and IRA, all of which I access through the web, I can't think of a single time where I wished their interface was "more slick". All I want is the numbers, organized in a fashion that is easy to understand. As the GP said, it's one thing when you're trying to do something new and show off, a la Google maps. But for a financial site, which was the root of this discussion? I don't see a need, and in fact, I think that trying to make the UI more slick actually decreases the usability.
I have seen them, and they are not headlights from cars. That is pretty obvious.
Right. And I've seen so-called heat lightning, and it is not just lightning that is occurring a long distance away. That is pretty obvious.
Disclaimer, I did not read the article,
Ahhh. It all makes sense now. And you still got modded up how?
The known oil resources are expected to last for 150 years with the current pace of burning.
And how much oil will we be pumping from the ground 149 years from now, just before all the resources are exhausted? A few barrels here and there? We're not going to continue to pump at our current rate and then suddenly hit the bottom of the barrel, so to speak. The amount we are able to pump will be in decline long before the resource is exhausted.
Moving distribution of goods off of our highways and onto railroads is another very effective way to save fuel. This has the added benefit that MOST of the wear and tear on our hiways will be reduced and traveling will be far more pleasant for the light vehicals.
It's not just the benefit of pleasant driving. Think of how much oil is used in asphalt. Not to mention how much is used by the construction vehicles themselves.
Long-distance freight traffic travelling by truck is ridiculous; it should all be done by railroad.
Some of the above assumes, of course, that the GP was referring to an "isolated system" when he said "completely closed system". The remainder about energy in the car being conserved holds in any event.
Either you're trolling, you don't thoroughly understand conservation of energy, or the system as you're imagining it is not in fact closed. Your teachers were right: energy and mass are constant within a closed system. And if you think about it, that's still true here. Energy isn't being created, it's simply changing forms from heat to kinetic energy. In this sense, both the steam engine and the ICE do the exact same thing: convert heat to KE. It's just that the ICE is using burning gasoline as a heat source, while the steam engine is using the ICE as a heat source.
That is NEVER an assumption -- in fact I believe the counter-fact to be true. In a free market, every transaction is based on the assumption that both parties feel they are profiting from the transaction.
Wrong. Perfect and complete information is one of the assumptions of a perfectly competitive market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
> I still prefer to buy from companies I or my friends have
> dealt with.
Of course, if you had followed that strictly 100% of the time, you'd never have bought from anyone. For any given company that you do business with, there had to be a first time.
(a) He said "I prefer to by from" not "I only buy from".
(b) He never said that his friends won't buy from a company without similar prior knowledge.
To be pedantic, he did not change the focusing distance, he moved the lens closer to the object. Focusing distance is properly measured from the sensor to the object, not from the front of the lens.
Are you saying that an extension tube doesn't change the minimum focus distance of a lens? Because that's completely wrong: extension tubes drastically shorten a lens's minimum focus distance (by far more than the length of the tube itself), at the expense of the ability to focus at infinity.
Even if you have a large cell phone plan, why do you want even one minute wasted on this nonsense?
Because all of my friends have the same cell company that I do. So anybody I call, it doesn't cost me any minutes. And with rollover, I have several thousand minutes to use right now. I couldn't care less about wasting 15, or even a few hundred, on any telemarketer that called me on my cell phone.
Generally when one is joining a sound of a vowel and a consonant, we use a instead of an. As in, "There is no such thing as a XXX rating" (since I have no idea why you'd say anything other than triple-X).
What, you mean like possibly enunciating each X individually? As in "there is no such thing as an ecks ecks ecks rating."
Another poster mentioned a couple arguments as to how your first two examples do affect others.
In addition to this, all three of your examples prevent an undue burden on the healthcare system, a burden which would result in higher costs for all of us either through our own medical insurance premiums or through government spending that eventually gets passed back to the taxpayer. As for the motorcycle helmet law, if you wish to sign a waiver stating that in the event of severe head trauma that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, you agree to foot the bill in full (if you have insurance) or waive the hospital's responsibility to treat you (if you don't have insurance or are unable to pay the bill), then go for it. Unfortunately, no such waiver would ever be held conscionable by the courts, so the only alternative is to make helmet use the law.
I never said there were positively-marketed female scientists. I said that in my experience, pop culture portrays scientists and mathematicians as nerdy, unattractive types in general.
No, I didn't grow up with a sister. Was I, a male, "in gifted"? Yes. Was I, a male, belittled and harassed for it? Yes. I'll ask the same question you did, why didn't pop culture un-geek you but it did your sister? Your answer is that male scientists are generally portrayed positively in pop culture, but I don't think they are. Take Beakman's World, for example, a show that is supposed to get kids interested in science. Why, then, not make the scientist look like a normal person (as most scientists are), instead of a stereotypical nerd?
I'd also like to say that even though scientists on TV are usually providing a positive role (for example, supporting the lead character by providing scientific assistance), they are still usually portrayed as nerdy, socially inept types. Think the Lone Gunmen -- they do a valuable service to the good-looking Mulder. Perhaps boys look at the service, and girls look at the nerdy unattractiveness? I don't know.
All kidding aside, our culture --pop culture or not-- predisposes girls against science and especially math.
It seems as though pop culture is pretty anti-science and anti-math across the board, not just towards females. Sorry, but for how much I hear the tired cliche that "smart is sexy" just about everything I've ever seen on TV or in the movies equates smart with nerdiness, and nerdiness with unattractiveness. My experiences with real people while growing up mirrored this. So why do guys still go into these fields but girls don't?
If something like this is going on, then the implications for prevention and treatment of the metastatic diseases are profoundly different from the allopathic approach-- rather than our multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry going off in a search for a new patentable drug, we would be better served by exploring physiotherapies, like perhaps intensive bicycle riding (think Lance Armstrong, and his success in fighting cancer).
You speak as if exercise will be a replacement for pharmaceutical-based solutions. The fact that Lance Armstrong, surely one of the most physically-fit people on the planet, would have died without drug treatment should disprove that notion. That said, exercise does reduce the risk factor for certain cancers, sometimes significantly (just google for 'exercise cancer'). Future studies might show that more cancers are affected, or they might show that most cancers don't care if you exercise. Also, whether the decreased risk has anything to do with your theory, or if it's just that exercise generally makes a person healthier, or if it's some other reason, who knows.
But the benefit of exercise in reducing heart disease is already well-known, but that hasn't convinced Americans to even walk to the counter at McDonalds instead of using the drive-through, let alone get an appropriate amount of "real" exercise, even though heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S. and most of Europe. It would be interesting to see: if exercise were shown to be the "cure for cancer", would people actually get serious about exercising? I doubt it. People still do smoke even while knowing the lung cancer connection, after all. (Not that this is a reason not to pursue fitness-based prevention and/or treatment; it's just an observation)