Doctors over 60 are disproportionately male. The gender ratio for young doctors is relatively balanced. It has been shown that female doctors have slightly better statistics for outcomes than male doctors. http://jamanetwork.com/journal... The JAMA study uses the same patient group as the old-vs-young study, that is hospitalized Medicare patients. And they both looked at performance of hospitalists. As near as I can tell, the gender ratio for hospitalists is more balanced than the all-doctors gender ratio, but I can't easily find numbers of age vs sex for hospitalists.
Another factor might be that hospitalists can migrate to be a specialist (waaaay more money), but that's not an option if you're not a very good hospitalist, so perhaps the old ones are a combination of dedicated hospitalists (the ones with large patient loads and good outcomes), and the ones that didn't advance (who may be just marking time).
So, I got curious and looked at both studies (but only the abstract for the JAMA). The difference in outcome between male and female hospitalists is smaller than the difference between young and the over 60 year old doctors. If I read correctly, the female vs male patient death difference was 11.07% vs 11.49%, but the young vs old was 10.8% vs 12.1%. So it appears that age is a much greater factor than sex.
How do we know that older patients don't just like going to older doctors?
The patients were unlikely to be choosing their doctor in this study.
The doctors used for this study were hospitalists. Hospitalists care for patients admitted to the hospital. Your regular primary care doctor is unlikely to be a hospitalist (although some hospitalists do have regular clinic days) because you are not getting admitted to the hospital for a sore throat or broken arm. Hospitalists treat very sick people, and in the hospital where I worked, they were considered to be higher-skill doctors then your regular doctor.
The study used the records of hospitalists because generally speaking, the patient does not get a chance to choose their hospitalist, and the study wanted to avoid that factor. Also because hospitalists treat admitted patients, they are dealing with people who are far more likely die without treatment, so that makes the numbers interesting.
Figure out where the 'trouble makers' sit and install remote controlled dog training, shock collars in the seats. Right in the naughty bits 2,000-10,000 volts. Control the shocks from your phone.
That will help them take the class a little more seriously. You only have to do it once, unless the kids are dumber than dogs.
Sadly, I have had a few rare students that appeared to be dumber than my dogs, and my dogs were Afghan hounds. At least the hounds were smart enough to not do things to that resulted in self-inflicted injury.
No. You can't support legacy software forever. If your customers choose to stay with it past it's notified EOL then they are SOL. Any company using XP that got hit by this can only blame themselves.
And it could be worse. Anyone who has used Quicken over the years knows what the consequence of forcing vendors to support a product forever would be like. The software will have a time bomb in it so that a certain period after EOL, it becomes crippled.
The capability is already built into Windows. If you've ever installed Win7 or newer and refused to put in a valid software key, it runs for a couple of months, then nags, and then reboots every hour or so. All MS has to do is invalidate the key at some time after EOL to force you to upgrade, and this could be done through the Windows Update process.
This is near San Diego, California, and well south of the glaciers' maximum extent. Furthermore, 130,000 years ago was around the beginning of the Eemian interglacial period, so they would not have been frozen around San Diego, and if it had been frozen sometime earlier, then it would have unfrozen 130,000 years ago. Note: the starting dates of the Eemian vary depending upon who the author is, but in any case it happened around or after when these bones were broken.
Yeah, something sad happened in it, but I cannot remember what it was.
I read that back in 1969. My mom was a sci-fi fan and kept the family well supplied. I think of it whenever someone goes on with the "only benefits the rich" complaint, or there is some really looney interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities act.
We'll have flying taxis zipping about at high rates of speed above everyone, and I can't see any way to slow them down to make everything fair by putting bicyclists and pedestrians in the sky; They'll just fall to back to ground. I'm totally against flying taxis unless we make the airways safe and fair for bicyclists and pedestrians.
On second thought, we can put bicycles and pedestrians in balloons tethered to the ground like barrage balloons. That would slow down the flying taxis and make it fair to everyone.
Sometimes a woman will trick a man into raising another man's child. It is more common than you think.
I used to do something similar when I was delivering Pizzas for a living. Whenever one of my girlfriends had a baby, I would drop off the baby instead of the pizza and told them it was theirs. Later the court ordered me to pay 30% of the child's upkeep. Not a total win for me, but I feel like I saved 70% on the cost of raising the kid.
I'm having some difficulty pulling out the raw numbers from the actual study, so I'll make up some nearly correct number to show the example. What they mean is that during the study period of the 250,000 participants, 2,500 died which is 1% risk of death during the study period. Of that 250,000 people, 10,000 commuted to work on bicycles. Of the 10,000 cyclists, 59 died for a 41% reduction in risk of death during the study period.
If we had used two groups, 100,000 people of the general population, about 1,000 would have died during the study period. Of a group of 100,000 cyclists, about 590 would have died during the period.
My first computer didn't use electronic components, but it was battery powered and had lights to display the next move. I used a cigar box from my grandpa as the case. I made it myself back in the 1950's, and all it could do was play the game of Nim. It always won if it got to move second as is the case with a judicious choice of an initial number. Against those who didn't know the game of Nim, it usually won if it took the first move. I "won" some coins, less than 50 cents, from the other kids. I think they knew better than to trust me; they just wanted to see it work.
how is this comment not rated +Funny!!? Whether unintentionally or not, it's hilarious.
You are correct. I was trying to be funny/troll. and making a point was secondary. But then I got derailed by someone who didn't understand what they had read and called me an idiot. I fail at trolling, again. The only thing I regret is that I used a Nazi comparison with Burger King rather than as I would have preferred,
which would have been to do it using Google/Alexa:: Orwell's 1984 telescreen. I don't have anything against either company other than that they are "asking for it".
True off-topic Burger King WTF story. I seldom eat at such places anymore, but I had the urge and went to a Burger King near my house. I ordered the basic meal: Double-cheese Whopper, fries, and chocolate milkshake. The Whopper lacked ketchup, and I also wanted some for my fries. I went back to the counter and asked for some ketchup, and the person at the cash register told me they were out of ketchup. I thought "what kind of monumental fuckup let's that happen in a burger joint?" I pointed out that they were in the same parking lot as a Kroger, and the manager who was standing nearby said, "Yes, you can go over there and buy some ketchup if you want". Now there's some top-notch customer service. Still, I'm not hating Burger King because of that, but I do wonder how long that store's manager lasted.
Eventually I considered that every attempt to practice it in name or in form throughout history has turned into a fiasco or failure. When it comes to human behavior, actual practice and experience overrides theory.
The educated and the aristocracy said the same thing about democracy for over 1500 years.
Good example, thanks. But I would go back ~ 2500 years to Plato. https://classicalwisdom.com/pl... And continuing... all attempts at democracy have failed. It's possibly because previous attempts at so-called democracy had only a narrow few allowed to vote (which means it is really an aristocracy), or even worse, tried to combine democracy with communistic type society, and/or were also a theocracy. It's even hard to pull off in a marriage, and that's usually only two people.
But I'm just repeating the point that democracy is something that humans can't do. It's a good thing that we keep trying, and perhaps we'll approach that ideal asymptotically. We presently have a number of constitutional republics that claim they are democracies, but are obviously not. Consider that until recently almost no country allowed members of different races to participate in elections, and until the 20th century females were excluded. You can't call it a democracy if more than half the population isn't allowed to vote or take office.
It's kind of like how the Nazis took what sounded like a good idea (eugenics) and fucked it up so bad that people can't even say the word without causing seizures.
Often the conclusion that something is "not a good idea" is a lack of the ability to thoroughly examine all aspects of a problem. It seems you are stricken by the absence of such an ability, or perhaps you are too lazy to think for yourself.
We are now seeing, worldwide, the results of idiots being allowed to reproduce at will.
If you don't think eugenics is a good idea, you ARE one of the aforementioned idiots.
I used to think eugenics was a good idea> I've thought about it a great deal. Eventually I considered that every attempt to practice it in name or in form throughout history has turned into a fiasco or failure. When it comes to human behavior, actual practice and experience overrides theory.
Eugenics sounds good. Experience shows it can't be done with humans. To believe otherwise in the face of actual experience says a great deal about a person's ability to think, and to try to think and then fail is worse than being a lazy thinker.
Here's an analogy: Communism sounds like a great idea, and if placed into practice it would be a wonderful thing. However communism has been tried and failed in every attempt. Experience shows it can't be done with humans. Eugenics sounds like a great idea, and if placed into practice it would be a wonderful thing. However eugenics has been tried and failed in every attempt. Experience shows it can't be done with humans.
I could not be happier. What Burger King is doing is taking what seemed like a good idea, but isn't, and fucking it up so the grown ups will have to step in and straighten it out. It's kind of like how the Nazis took what sounded like a good idea (eugenics) and fucked it up so bad that people can't even say the word without causing seizures.
Why did they include Agnes McPhail and not Emily Murphy? Emily Murphy was the first female magistrate in the entire British Empire. She was also the one who got the court ruling that women were declared to legally be "persons" under Canadian law.
5) climb onto your wife to heroically protect her with your body or whatever One of the few perks of living in tornado alley is having sex in a raging thunderstorm with tornado sirens in the background. Add some WWII air raid flavor by putting on your uniforms.
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."
If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."
I want to call bullshit on that thought. In what way is digital technological complex in regards to the law? What knowledge is required that (it is supposed) the present justices would not have? And what has Gorsuch done to educate himself on technological issues that Judge Ginsburg, Thomas, et al has not?
Speaking as someone who fairly old, these "complex issues digital technology raises" are not problems that would be difficult for anyone who's been doing the law for any amount of time. I just don't see complexity in there. But perhaps I'm wrong. Give me an example of a legal issue involving "complex issue of digital technology" that would be difficult for an intelligent novice to understand with only a few days analysis.
Is there something that prevents people from learning anything new after they turn a 40, or is it just "complex issues digital technology raises" that only young people can understand?
You're willing to post on Slashdot, which is full of trackers, but you don't want others tracking you. Why does Slashdot get a free pass?
I don't see any hypocrisy. I choose to use Slashdot and I don't mind that Slashdot tracks my Slashdot activity and does whatever with that information and that's my choice. I don't give a shit who knows that I use Slashdot if they choose to sell that knowledge. I also don't care that the Toyota Supra Forum sells my email address to whoever.
Other things I do care about. Not all websites do tracking and selling of user data. I use a few financial websites that Do Not Track and share. I would be very unhappy if my bank sold anything about me to just anyone who asked for it, so I'm not going to use a bank/broker that has an non-privacy policy. I very much care and do not want anyone to be able to purchase a list that contains a list of all the financial institutions I access, and that's what ISP level tracking will give them. I don't want Fidelity to know that I have a Chase account.
As for recommending TOR and vpn, that's like telling us to carry condoms to offer to a rapist so we won't get a disease.
For the first rebooting of Star Trek I came too late. I was stuck in the front row. Being just a few feet form the 3 story screen, I spent the entire movie half out of my seat contorted, trying to see what was going on. I wanted to lay on the floor, but was too embarrassed to try that position.
I had a similar experience sitting on the front row of a packed theatre, but the movie was "The Exorcist" That was really something to see from the front row with the speakers almost right in front of me so it seemed like 120+ decibels. What was actually right in front of me was an air conditioning vent, so from time to time there was a blast of ice cold air, and it always seemed to happen during an intense moment. There's no way to have that experience from home.
Slashdot Mirror
Doctors over 60 are disproportionately male. The gender ratio for young doctors is relatively balanced.
It has been shown that female doctors have slightly better statistics for outcomes than male doctors.
http://jamanetwork.com/journal...
The JAMA study uses the same patient group as the old-vs-young study, that is hospitalized Medicare patients.
And they both looked at performance of hospitalists.
As near as I can tell, the gender ratio for hospitalists is more balanced than the all-doctors gender ratio, but I can't easily find numbers of age vs sex for hospitalists.
Another factor might be that hospitalists can migrate to be a specialist (waaaay more money), but that's not an option if you're not a very good hospitalist, so perhaps the old ones are a combination of dedicated hospitalists (the ones with large patient loads and good outcomes), and the ones that didn't advance (who may be just marking time).
So, I got curious and looked at both studies (but only the abstract for the JAMA). The difference in outcome between male and female hospitalists is smaller than the difference between young and the over 60 year old doctors. If I read correctly, the female vs male patient death difference was 11.07% vs 11.49%, but the young vs old was 10.8% vs 12.1%.
So it appears that age is a much greater factor than sex.
How do we know that older patients don't just like going to older doctors?
The patients were unlikely to be choosing their doctor in this study.
The doctors used for this study were hospitalists. Hospitalists care for patients admitted to the hospital.
Your regular primary care doctor is unlikely to be a hospitalist (although some hospitalists do have regular clinic days) because you are not getting admitted to the hospital for a sore throat or broken arm.
Hospitalists treat very sick people, and in the hospital where I worked, they were considered to be higher-skill doctors then your regular doctor.
The study used the records of hospitalists because generally speaking, the patient does not get a chance to choose their hospitalist, and the study wanted to avoid that factor. Also because hospitalists treat admitted patients, they are dealing with people who are far more likely die without treatment, so that makes the numbers interesting.
Yes, but it's too big to fit in this comment space. Please send me a stamped, self-addressed envelope and I will return you a copy.
What's a envelope, and should I stamp on it bare-footed or with boots?
Figure out where the 'trouble makers' sit and install remote controlled dog training, shock collars in the seats. Right in the naughty bits 2,000-10,000 volts. Control the shocks from your phone.
That will help them take the class a little more seriously. You only have to do it once, unless the kids are dumber than dogs.
Sadly, I have had a few rare students that appeared to be dumber than my dogs, and my dogs were Afghan hounds.
At least the hounds were smart enough to not do things to that resulted in self-inflicted injury.
No. You can't support legacy software forever. If your customers choose to stay with it past it's notified EOL then they are SOL. Any company using XP that got hit by this can only blame themselves.
And it could be worse.
Anyone who has used Quicken over the years knows what the consequence of forcing vendors to support a product forever would be like.
The software will have a time bomb in it so that a certain period after EOL, it becomes crippled.
The capability is already built into Windows. If you've ever installed Win7 or newer and refused to put in a valid software key, it runs for a couple of months, then nags, and then reboots every hour or so. All MS has to do is invalidate the key at some time after EOL to force you to upgrade, and this could be done through the Windows Update process.
This is near San Diego, California, and well south of the glaciers' maximum extent.
Furthermore, 130,000 years ago was around the beginning of the Eemian interglacial period, so they would not have been frozen around San Diego, and if it had been frozen sometime earlier, then it would have unfrozen 130,000 years ago.
Note: the starting dates of the Eemian vary depending upon who the author is, but in any case it happened around or after when these bones were broken.
Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut?
Yeah, something sad happened in it, but I cannot remember what it was.
I read that back in 1969. My mom was a sci-fi fan and kept the family well supplied.
I think of it whenever someone goes on with the "only benefits the rich" complaint, or there is some really looney interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities act.
It's not about the rich havening an advantage over the poor; it's wrong to let anyone have speed advantage in daily commuting.
There's no way to integrate this with Complete Streets initiatives.
https://smartgrowthamerica.org...
We'll have flying taxis zipping about at high rates of speed above everyone, and I can't see any way to slow them down to make everything fair by putting bicyclists and pedestrians in the sky; They'll just fall to back to ground.
I'm totally against flying taxis unless we make the airways safe and fair for bicyclists and pedestrians.
On second thought, we can put bicycles and pedestrians in balloons tethered to the ground like barrage balloons. That would slow down the flying taxis and make it fair to everyone.
"World's First Vaccine Against Malaria To Arrive Next Year, Says WHO "
Well aren't they going to answer that question?
Betteridge's law suggests the answer would be "no one".
Sometimes a woman will trick a man into raising another man's child. It is more common than you think.
I used to do something similar when I was delivering Pizzas for a living. Whenever one of my girlfriends had a baby, I would drop off the baby instead of the pizza and told them it was theirs. Later the court ordered me to pay 30% of the child's upkeep. Not a total win for me, but I feel like I saved 70% on the cost of raising the kid.
I had the same reaction ... ANY?
Here's the actual study: http://www.bmj.com/content/357...
I'm having some difficulty pulling out the raw numbers from the actual study, so I'll make up some nearly correct number to show the example.
What they mean is that during the study period of the 250,000 participants, 2,500 died which is 1% risk of death during the study period.
Of that 250,000 people, 10,000 commuted to work on bicycles. Of the 10,000 cyclists, 59 died for a 41% reduction in risk of death during the study period.
If we had used two groups, 100,000 people of the general population, about 1,000 would have died during the study period.
Of a group of 100,000 cyclists, about 590 would have died during the period.
My first computer didn't use electronic components, but it was battery powered and had lights to display the next move. I used a cigar box from my grandpa as the case. I made it myself back in the 1950's, and all it could do was play the game of Nim.
It always won if it got to move second as is the case with a judicious choice of an initial number. Against those who didn't know the game of Nim, it usually won if it took the first move.
I "won" some coins, less than 50 cents, from the other kids. I think they knew better than to trust me; they just wanted to see it work.
how is this comment not rated +Funny!!? Whether unintentionally or not, it's hilarious.
You are correct. :: Orwell's 1984 telescreen.
I was trying to be funny/troll. and making a point was secondary. But then I got derailed by someone who didn't understand what they had read and called me an idiot. I fail at trolling, again.
The only thing I regret is that I used a Nazi comparison with Burger King rather than as I would have preferred,
which would have been to do it using Google/Alexa
I don't have anything against either company other than that they are "asking for it".
True off-topic Burger King WTF story.
I seldom eat at such places anymore, but I had the urge and went to a Burger King near my house.
I ordered the basic meal: Double-cheese Whopper, fries, and chocolate milkshake. The Whopper lacked ketchup, and I also wanted some for my fries. I went back to the counter and asked for some ketchup, and the person at the cash register told me they were out of ketchup. I thought "what kind of monumental fuckup let's that happen in a burger joint?"
I pointed out that they were in the same parking lot as a Kroger, and the manager who was standing nearby said, "Yes, you can go over there and buy some ketchup if you want". Now there's some top-notch customer service.
Still, I'm not hating Burger King because of that, but I do wonder how long that store's manager lasted.
The bigger fish they should be frying should be the "crippling construction defects"
I may be going way out on a limb here, but maybe ship construction and health issues are handled by different people.
I'm pretty sure it's just this guy doing everything:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eosG...
Eventually I considered that every attempt to practice it in name or in form throughout history has turned into a fiasco or failure. When it comes to human behavior, actual practice and experience overrides theory.
The educated and the aristocracy said the same thing about democracy for over 1500 years.
Good example, thanks. But I would go back ~ 2500 years to Plato. https://classicalwisdom.com/pl... ... all attempts at democracy have failed. It's possibly because previous attempts at so-called democracy had only a narrow few allowed to vote (which means it is really an aristocracy), or even worse, tried to combine democracy with communistic type society, and/or were also a theocracy.
And continuing
It's even hard to pull off in a marriage, and that's usually only two people.
But I'm just repeating the point that democracy is something that humans can't do. It's a good thing that we keep trying, and perhaps we'll approach that ideal asymptotically.
We presently have a number of constitutional republics that claim they are democracies, but are obviously not.
Consider that until recently almost no country allowed members of different races to participate in elections, and until the 20th century females were excluded. You can't call it a democracy if more than half the population isn't allowed to vote or take office.
It's kind of like how the Nazis took what sounded like a good idea (eugenics) and fucked it up so bad that people can't even say the word without causing seizures.
Often the conclusion that something is "not a good idea" is a lack of the ability to
thoroughly examine all aspects of a problem. It seems you are stricken by
the absence of such an ability, or perhaps you are too lazy to think for yourself.
We are now seeing, worldwide, the results of idiots being allowed to reproduce at will.
If you don't think eugenics is a good idea, you ARE one of the aforementioned idiots.
I used to think eugenics was a good idea> I've thought about it a great deal. Eventually I considered that every attempt to practice it in name or in form throughout history has turned into a fiasco or failure. When it comes to human behavior, actual practice and experience overrides theory.
Eugenics sounds good. Experience shows it can't be done with humans.
To believe otherwise in the face of actual experience says a great deal about a person's ability to think, and to try to think and then fail is worse than being a lazy thinker.
Here's an analogy:
Communism sounds like a great idea, and if placed into practice it would be a wonderful thing.
However communism has been tried and failed in every attempt. Experience shows it can't be done with humans.
Eugenics sounds like a great idea, and if placed into practice it would be a wonderful thing.
However eugenics has been tried and failed in every attempt. Experience shows it can't be done with humans.
I could not be happier.
What Burger King is doing is taking what seemed like a good idea, but isn't, and fucking it up so the grown ups will have to step in and straighten it out. It's kind of like how the Nazis took what sounded like a good idea (eugenics) and fucked it up so bad that people can't even say the word without causing seizures.
Why did they include Agnes McPhail and not Emily Murphy?
Emily Murphy was the first female magistrate in the entire British Empire.
She was also the one who got the court ruling that women were declared to legally be "persons" under Canadian law.
5) climb onto your wife to heroically protect her with your body or whatever
One of the few perks of living in tornado alley is having sex in a raging thunderstorm with tornado sirens in the background.
Add some WWII air raid flavor by putting on your uniforms.
A town can't have a negative number of people. Therefore, it would be stuck with a maximum of 40 more people.
Best Slashdot response this year.
Thank you for that.
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."
If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/a...
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."
I want to call bullshit on that thought.
In what way is digital technological complex in regards to the law? What knowledge is required that (it is supposed) the present justices would not have?
And what has Gorsuch done to educate himself on technological issues that Judge Ginsburg, Thomas, et al has not?
Speaking as someone who fairly old, these "complex issues digital technology raises" are not problems that would be difficult for anyone who's been doing the law for any amount of time. I just don't see complexity in there.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Give me an example of a legal issue involving "complex issue of digital technology" that would be difficult for an intelligent novice to understand with only a few days analysis.
Is there something that prevents people from learning anything new after they turn a 40, or is it just "complex issues digital technology raises" that only young people can understand?
You're willing to post on Slashdot, which is full of trackers, but you don't want others tracking you. Why does Slashdot get a free pass?
I don't see any hypocrisy.
I choose to use Slashdot and I don't mind that Slashdot tracks my Slashdot activity and does whatever with that information and that's my choice.
I don't give a shit who knows that I use Slashdot if they choose to sell that knowledge.
I also don't care that the Toyota Supra Forum sells my email address to whoever.
Other things I do care about.
Not all websites do tracking and selling of user data. I use a few financial websites that Do Not Track and share.
I would be very unhappy if my bank sold anything about me to just anyone who asked for it, so I'm not going to use a bank/broker that has an non-privacy policy.
I very much care and do not want anyone to be able to purchase a list that contains a list of all the financial institutions I access, and that's what ISP level tracking will give them. I don't want Fidelity to know that I have a Chase account.
As for recommending TOR and vpn, that's like telling us to carry condoms to offer to a rapist so we won't get a disease.
Innisfil, population 32,727 as of 2014
Is anybody else weirdly disappointed that the town does not have 41 more people?
You just restored my faith in Slashdot.
My poor neck.
For the first rebooting of Star Trek I came too late. I was stuck in the front row. Being just a few feet form the 3 story screen, I spent the entire movie half out of my seat contorted, trying to see what was going on. I wanted to lay on the floor, but was too embarrassed to try that position.
I had a similar experience sitting on the front row of a packed theatre, but the movie was "The Exorcist"
That was really something to see from the front row with the speakers almost right in front of me so it seemed like 120+ decibels. What was actually right in front of me was an air conditioning vent, so from time to time there was a blast of ice cold air, and it always seemed to happen during an intense moment.
There's no way to have that experience from home.
Using coal saves on the cost of shipping babies!