That was my thought too. People take pills because they have some sort of problem. Some of those problems are dangerous. Thus I read this study as saying:
"People who have some problem with their health, have higher mortality than people who don't."
4) I cannot store my stuff from one shop in the bus while visiting a different shop.
5) The bus is full of strangers, some of which behave and/or smell bad
6) I can't choose the color of my bus, nor the seats, nor anything else.
7) The bus doesn't play the music I like.
8) The bus takes -much- longer, doing my 10-mile commute with dropoff of children in daycare by bus would mean taking 3 different buses each way (a total of 6!), and take a minimum of 2 hours extra time a day, compared to a car.
9) Did I mention it's expensive ? Even at $50/hour, the opportunity-cost of taking the bus is a mind-boggling $10.000/year. This is 4 times what I spend on my car.
Yeah. "more like", and the statistical data are tiny, given that the population of people above say 112, is *tiny*.
It makes sense that the odds of living another year, dwindle with mounting age. A 10-year old in the first world has more than 99.9% chance of turning 11, but the same cannot be said about a 110 year olds chances of living to 111.
The question is if there's a "knee" in the curve around 114. Maybe, but I don't think we've even got enough data to say for sure.
That the curve is squarer makes sense; it just means it's (on the average) easier to prevent young people from dying, than it is to prevent old people from dying. It's easier to come up with some treatment that'll make a person who'd otherwise die at 30 live for 4-5 more decades, than it is to do the same for a person who is 80 to begin with.
That's because there's *many* things it's "normal" to die of at 80, and *few* (relatively speaking) at 30. Thus if you've got (say) HIV and are 30, *only* removing HIV (not that we can), would add decades to your life-expectancy.
But if you remove HIV from a 80-year-old, you're left with "something else will still probably kill him soon".
It's nothing magic, and the same for cars. If a single thing is broken in an otherwise new and good car, odds are that fixing that single thing will make the car work for a significant period. Fix the single thing that stops a old-and-worn-down car from working, and odds are *another* problem will show up in short order.
Producing content is expensive. Hosting it, is not for most kinds of content.
Yes, if you've got huge traffic, and huge amounts of content, it adds up, but it adds up to cheaper-than-dirt. Wikipedia, for example, has a total budget of around $10M/year, and spends about a quarter of that on actual hosting.
That's for serving 50000 requests a second, making up about 5000 page-views a second, or 500 million page-views a day. Roughly speaking, serving 100000 page-views cost a dollar. If you where to look at 50 pages every day, then the actual cost of that would be on the order of $0.18/year.
They blew it with XIII, and pretty much admitted it. There's a follow-up XIII-2, that surprisingly rectifies quite a few of the shortcomings in XIII.
Gameplay is no longer forced-linear (allthough it's no skyrim either). There's side-quests. There's significantly fewer annoying and useless characters (okay, so Hope makes an appearance, but only as an NPC)
If you could tolerate XIII, odds are you'll quite enjoy XIII-2. It's still nowhere near my favourite of the series, but it's quite good.
Running a number-station on the Internet is beyond trivial anyway, and removing encrypted content from Facebook does not even make it hard to do so over Facebook. You just need to steganographically hide the numbers in status-updates about cats, or pictures of same.
Yeah. That's iplink.no its voip-based. Armenia is actually an expensive example, because if you call abroad a lot, you'd probably get one of the subscriptions that have this included (and there isn't one for Armenia).
I've got a german partner, and consequently we've got the "Iplink EU" subscription, which at $20/month includes unlimited minutes to any landline in EU. Thus forgetting to hang up on a call to Germany, and leaving it off the hook for a full month - while the recipient does the same (unlikely, if you ask me) would cost us precisely zero in additional charges.
Oh, they're "supposed" to be, are they ? Says who ? (obviously you consider the opinion of the people getting married irrelevant, since that's who is asking in the first place)
Here's a hint: arranging a wedding is entirely optional to do at all. And if you *do* choose to arrange one, you're free to do it precisely as you want.
I dunno. Armenia cost $0.10/minute with my telephone-company, or $6/hour. A month of non-stop Armenia is thus about $4500.
This is expensive, but still *vastly* cheaper than $86000.
Services that can rack up enough cost to bankrupt people in a period substantially shorter than the billing-period (i.e. before they even notice) is a problem.
You keep backups of everything that's important. You keep them in more than one physical location because physical locations burn down or are burglared or whatever all the time.
If you worry about government-goons, you keep copies in atleast 2 separate jurisdictions, preferably more.
At this point you're just talking semantics. My point was that it's useful to have a "standard deal" for committed couples that are legally recognized by the state, and by law.
This deal should offcourse be equally available to all adult couples, without discrimination based on race or gender or whatever else irrelevancies - but that's just a concrete example of the *general* idea that laws should not care about the gender of the person
The problem with your suggestion, is that it'd leave *marriage* to the religious crackpots. And frankly, they don't deserve it. *marriage* as an institution is -not- a christian invention, Norwegians for example, have been getting married for millenia before christianity arrived in Norway.
Okay, if you said "the state recognize civil union, 'marriage' doesn't legally mean anything thus anyone who wants to are entirely free to claim they're/married/ or to arrange a/marriage/" then it'd be okay in principle, but the problem is that most other states -do- recognize marriage legally, so it'd create a hell of a lot of confusion.
I think it's better to say "the state recognize the right for any adult couple to enter into a union with certain rights and duties. We call this union marriage".
encryption doesn't (generally speaking) change the size of the data at all, allthough it's prefered to compress data prior to encryption both to reduce encryption-workload and to lessen known-plaintext-vectors, and doing so would actually *reduce* the bandwith-requirements.
Redundancy increases data-size, but not by an order of magnitude. It's just back-of-the-envelope offcourse, I stand by my claim: it's a ridicolous amount of data. An average drone-plane, as used in war-theatres today, certainly does not produce that much data, not even at peak, nevermind average.
Yeah. Too often "that's socialist" is used as a veto-card against some suggestion or other, instead of asking the logical question: "does it work?".
What matters is if a policy overall contributes to improving a society or not, not who came up with the policy-idea. NIH is as bad in politics as it is in technology.
Amusingly enough, Scandinavia is both substantially more democratic, *and* with substantially more of "The American Dream" alive than USA these days. Social mobility is a lot higher here - and a lot of that has to do with the fact that even if your parents are dirt-poor, you get to go to a ivy-league school provided *your* grades are up to it. But that's socialist, I guess, to pick people based on performance, rather than based on the thickness of their wallet.
The number claimed is simply unrealistic, and must be a mistake.
full-HD as coming from a blueray-disc requires on the order of 35 megabits second. 500Mbytes/second is the same as 4000 megabit/second, or more than 100 times what a full-hd-movie coming rom a blueray-disc uses.
Yes there may be more than one camera. Yes it may be more than full-hd. But no, not more than *100* full-HD-cameras.
It's utter bullshit offcourse. Some journalist probably mistook frequency-used for data-transmitted or something along those lines.
Flight-data (speed, position, velocity, status) is a tiny trickle of data, the only data that are significant is when transmitting live-video, which not all drones do 100% of the time. And even when they do, it's not 500MB/s. Full-HD-video from a blueray-player is on the order of 35 megabit/second, thus 500 MB/s would be the equivalent of streaming around 100 HD-cameras in blueray-quality-video.
That's not what's happening. The number is bullshit.
Yeah. You're "supposed" to. Instead, what many do, me including, is having an old TV die, go to buy a new one, only to discover that every TV with a decent feature-set also includes 3D. Thus you get the 3D-set, despite having zero interest in this technology.
Half a year later, only one pair of the two 3D-glasses that came with the set are even unpacked - despite the fact that I watch nearly all my movies and TV with my partner - and even that was used only for checking the feature out and concluding it was useless. It's not that it doesn't work, it does work. It's not that I get nauseous, I don't. It's just that it doesn't add anything of value, and adds hassle.
For roughly the same reason, DVDs still outsell bluerays -- *even* if you consider only purchases by households who own blueray-players. A $30 blueray is simply often not a good value-proposition compared to the $20 DVD. Yes it's better. But for most movies, the difference doesn't matter to most people.
That's true, but the general problem is the power-distance. Meaningful consent is problematic in relationships where one part is significantly more empowered than the other. Age is the obvious example, but for similar reasons there's ethical problems surrounding (for example) professors having sex with their students or bosses having sex with their underlings.
The same problem arise, although in this case there's no laws against it (3 guesses as to why!), if you are in a relationship with someone of wildly differing wealth to yourself, more so the poorer you are. Is it a free choice for a hungry woman living on $1 a day to say yes or no to sex with a guy earning 3 orders of magnitude more ? Isn't her hand forced, or atleast pushed, by the same forces that make us forbid professors from screwing their students ?
True. After 1970, most of the productivity-gains in USA have *not* been passed on to the workers in the form of higher salaries and/or shorter work-years. Germany also hasn't done very well on that count for the last 10-15 years worker-compensation has been pretty much constant, while productivity has climbed substantially.
You're a democracy though. It's *know* what systems tend to concentrate wealth at the top, and what systems are better (not perfect) at making society as a whole benefit.
Have a look at Wikipedias maps over GINI-index by country (gini measures wealth-concentration), and you'll notice USA has a inequality that is completely uncommon for a developed country. (though common for a despot-run developing country)
Where I come from *every* quintile of society has seen real growth in earnings (i.e. salary-hikes larger than inflation) pretty much every year since 1970, and the gap between rich and poor is about a third of what it is in USA. (In USA if you're an average bottom-quintile person, you must multiply your income by 17 to become an average top-quintile person. The equivalent number for Norway is about 6)
I don't have a 3-day workweek. But I *do* have a 35-hour workweek as a programmer, with a Bachelor-degree and half a decade of experience, and a compensation of $8000/month for that. I ain't complaining. Oh yeah, and unemployment is 2.1% - most of that consisting of short-term "between-jobs" kind of things, and some people who are frankly more like "unemployable" than "unemployed".
Slashdot Mirror
That was my thought too. People take pills because they have some sort of problem. Some of those problems are dangerous. Thus I read this study as saying:
"People who have some problem with their health, have higher mortality than people who don't."
And that's kind of a giant "duh!"
More than "a little bit" different, I'd say. Putting a man on the moon in 2034 is going to be very different from doing it in 1969.
windows doesn't stop autoloading crap even if you've not used it for a decade.
1) Buses don't start at my home.
2) Buses don't go where I want to go.
3) Buses don't go -when- I want to go.
4) I cannot store my stuff from one shop in the bus while visiting a different shop.
5) The bus is full of strangers, some of which behave and/or smell bad
6) I can't choose the color of my bus, nor the seats, nor anything else.
7) The bus doesn't play the music I like.
8) The bus takes -much- longer, doing my 10-mile commute with dropoff of children in daycare by bus would mean taking 3 different buses each way (a total of 6!), and take a minimum of 2 hours extra time a day, compared to a car.
9) Did I mention it's expensive ? Even at $50/hour, the opportunity-cost of taking the bus is a mind-boggling $10.000/year. This is 4 times what I spend on my car.
Yeah. "more like", and the statistical data are tiny, given that the population of people above say 112, is *tiny*.
It makes sense that the odds of living another year, dwindle with mounting age. A 10-year old in the first world has more than 99.9% chance of turning 11, but the same cannot be said about a 110 year olds chances of living to 111.
The question is if there's a "knee" in the curve around 114. Maybe, but I don't think we've even got enough data to say for sure.
That the curve is squarer makes sense; it just means it's (on the average) easier to prevent young people from dying, than it is to prevent old people from dying. It's easier to come up with some treatment that'll make a person who'd otherwise die at 30 live for 4-5 more decades, than it is to do the same for a person who is 80 to begin with.
That's because there's *many* things it's "normal" to die of at 80, and *few* (relatively speaking) at 30. Thus if you've got (say) HIV and are 30, *only* removing HIV (not that we can), would add decades to your life-expectancy.
But if you remove HIV from a 80-year-old, you're left with "something else will still probably kill him soon".
It's nothing magic, and the same for cars. If a single thing is broken in an otherwise new and good car, odds are that fixing that single thing will make the car work for a significant period. Fix the single thing that stops a old-and-worn-down car from working, and odds are *another* problem will show up in short order.
Producing content is expensive. Hosting it, is not for most kinds of content.
Yes, if you've got huge traffic, and huge amounts of content, it adds up, but it adds up to cheaper-than-dirt. Wikipedia, for example, has a total budget of around $10M/year, and spends about a quarter of that on actual hosting.
That's for serving 50000 requests a second, making up about 5000 page-views a second, or 500 million page-views a day. Roughly speaking, serving 100000 page-views cost a dollar. If you where to look at 50 pages every day, then the actual cost of that would be on the order of $0.18/year.
They blew it with XIII, and pretty much admitted it. There's a follow-up XIII-2, that surprisingly rectifies quite a few of the shortcomings in XIII.
Gameplay is no longer forced-linear (allthough it's no skyrim either). There's side-quests. There's significantly fewer annoying and useless characters (okay, so Hope makes an appearance, but only as an NPC)
If you could tolerate XIII, odds are you'll quite enjoy XIII-2. It's still nowhere near my favourite of the series, but it's quite good.
Running a number-station on the Internet is beyond trivial anyway, and removing encrypted content from Facebook does not even make it hard to do so over Facebook. You just need to steganographically hide the numbers in status-updates about cats, or pictures of same.
Thanks. I was wondering if I'm the only one who found Code Complete -terribly- dull and boring.
In contrast, I loved the Pragmatic Programmer, Programming Pearls and the Mythical Man Month.
Yeah. That's iplink.no its voip-based. Armenia is actually an expensive example, because if you call abroad a lot, you'd probably get one of the subscriptions that have this included (and there isn't one for Armenia).
I've got a german partner, and consequently we've got the "Iplink EU" subscription, which at $20/month includes unlimited minutes to any landline in EU. Thus forgetting to hang up on a call to Germany, and leaving it off the hook for a full month - while the recipient does the same (unlikely, if you ask me) would cost us precisely zero in additional charges.
You're married to the wrong woman then. Plain and simple.
If marriage makes it impossible to do something that's important to you, then it's not the right marriage for you.
You ignore also, offcourse, that there's geeky women in the world too - even geeky -couples-.
Oh, they're "supposed" to be, are they ? Says who ? (obviously you consider the opinion of the people getting married irrelevant, since that's who is asking in the first place)
Here's a hint: arranging a wedding is entirely optional to do at all. And if you *do* choose to arrange one, you're free to do it precisely as you want.
I dunno. Armenia cost $0.10/minute with my telephone-company, or $6/hour. A month of non-stop Armenia is thus about $4500.
This is expensive, but still *vastly* cheaper than $86000.
Services that can rack up enough cost to bankrupt people in a period substantially shorter than the billing-period (i.e. before they even notice) is a problem.
You keep backups of everything that's important. You keep them in more than one physical location because physical locations burn down or are burglared or whatever all the time.
If you worry about government-goons, you keep copies in atleast 2 separate jurisdictions, preferably more.
At this point you're just talking semantics. My point was that it's useful to have a "standard deal" for committed couples that are legally recognized by the state, and by law.
This deal should offcourse be equally available to all adult couples, without discrimination based on race or gender or whatever else irrelevancies - but that's just a concrete example of the *general* idea that laws should not care about the gender of the person
The problem with your suggestion, is that it'd leave *marriage* to the religious crackpots. And frankly, they don't deserve it. *marriage* as an institution is -not- a christian invention, Norwegians for example, have been getting married for millenia before christianity arrived in Norway.
Okay, if you said "the state recognize civil union, 'marriage' doesn't legally mean anything thus anyone who wants to are entirely free to claim they're /married/ or to arrange a /marriage/" then it'd be okay in principle, but the problem is that most other states -do- recognize marriage legally, so it'd create a hell of a lot of confusion.
I think it's better to say "the state recognize the right for any adult couple to enter into a union with certain rights and duties. We call this union marriage".
encryption doesn't (generally speaking) change the size of the data at all, allthough it's prefered to compress data prior to encryption both to reduce encryption-workload and to lessen known-plaintext-vectors, and doing so would actually *reduce* the bandwith-requirements.
Redundancy increases data-size, but not by an order of magnitude. It's just back-of-the-envelope offcourse, I stand by my claim: it's a ridicolous amount of data. An average drone-plane, as used in war-theatres today, certainly does not produce that much data, not even at peak, nevermind average.
It's not a problem - but it leads to estimates of 3d-interest based on purchase of 3d-capable television-sets being overestimates.
i.e. there's people who bought 3d-capable tv-sets, despite having little or no interest in 3d-content.
The skin-effect is not really relevant at 50Hz. You'd need to up the frequency by MANY magnitudes before that'd become dominant.
Yeah. Too often "that's socialist" is used as a veto-card against some suggestion or other, instead of asking the logical question: "does it work?".
What matters is if a policy overall contributes to improving a society or not, not who came up with the policy-idea. NIH is as bad in politics as it is in technology.
Amusingly enough, Scandinavia is both substantially more democratic, *and* with substantially more of "The American Dream" alive than USA these days. Social mobility is a lot higher here - and a lot of that has to do with the fact that even if your parents are dirt-poor, you get to go to a ivy-league school provided *your* grades are up to it. But that's socialist, I guess, to pick people based on performance, rather than based on the thickness of their wallet.
uncompressed, sure. But who the hell sends uncompressed video anywhere ?
The number claimed is simply unrealistic, and must be a mistake.
full-HD as coming from a blueray-disc requires on the order of 35 megabits second. 500Mbytes/second is the same as 4000 megabit/second, or more than 100 times what a full-hd-movie coming rom a blueray-disc uses.
Yes there may be more than one camera. Yes it may be more than full-hd. But no, not more than *100* full-HD-cameras.
It's utter bullshit offcourse. Some journalist probably mistook frequency-used for data-transmitted or something along those lines.
Flight-data (speed, position, velocity, status) is a tiny trickle of data, the only data that are significant is when transmitting live-video, which not all drones do 100% of the time. And even when they do, it's not 500MB/s. Full-HD-video from a blueray-player is on the order of 35 megabit/second, thus 500 MB/s would be the equivalent of streaming around 100 HD-cameras in blueray-quality-video.
That's not what's happening. The number is bullshit.
Yeah. You're "supposed" to. Instead, what many do, me including, is having an old TV die, go to buy a new one, only to discover that every TV with a decent feature-set also includes 3D. Thus you get the 3D-set, despite having zero interest in this technology.
Half a year later, only one pair of the two 3D-glasses that came with the set are even unpacked - despite the fact that I watch nearly all my movies and TV with my partner - and even that was used only for checking the feature out and concluding it was useless. It's not that it doesn't work, it does work. It's not that I get nauseous, I don't. It's just that it doesn't add anything of value, and adds hassle.
For roughly the same reason, DVDs still outsell bluerays -- *even* if you consider only purchases by households who own blueray-players. A $30 blueray is simply often not a good value-proposition compared to the $20 DVD. Yes it's better. But for most movies, the difference doesn't matter to most people.
That's true, but the general problem is the power-distance. Meaningful consent is problematic in relationships where one part is significantly more empowered than the other. Age is the obvious example, but for similar reasons there's ethical problems surrounding (for example) professors having sex with their students or bosses having sex with their underlings.
The same problem arise, although in this case there's no laws against it (3 guesses as to why!), if you are in a relationship with someone of wildly differing wealth to yourself, more so the poorer you are. Is it a free choice for a hungry woman living on $1 a day to say yes or no to sex with a guy earning 3 orders of magnitude more ? Isn't her hand forced, or atleast pushed, by the same forces that make us forbid professors from screwing their students ?
True. After 1970, most of the productivity-gains in USA have *not* been passed on to the workers in the form of higher salaries and/or shorter work-years. Germany also hasn't done very well on that count for the last 10-15 years worker-compensation has been pretty much constant, while productivity has climbed substantially.
You're a democracy though. It's *know* what systems tend to concentrate wealth at the top, and what systems are better (not perfect) at making society as a whole benefit.
Have a look at Wikipedias maps over GINI-index by country (gini measures wealth-concentration), and you'll notice USA has a inequality that is completely uncommon for a developed country. (though common for a despot-run developing country)
Where I come from *every* quintile of society has seen real growth in earnings (i.e. salary-hikes larger than inflation) pretty much every year since 1970, and the gap between rich and poor is about a third of what it is in USA. (In USA if you're an average bottom-quintile person, you must multiply your income by 17 to become an average top-quintile person. The equivalent number for Norway is about 6)
I don't have a 3-day workweek. But I *do* have a 35-hour workweek as a programmer, with a Bachelor-degree and half a decade of experience, and a compensation of $8000/month for that. I ain't complaining. Oh yeah, and unemployment is 2.1% - most of that consisting of short-term "between-jobs" kind of things, and some people who are frankly more like "unemployable" than "unemployed".
The policies that work aren't secret.