Are you implying that HP & Lewis's books fail to appeal to adults? I know an awful lot of adults (not to mention publisher's marketing departments, bookstore staff, librarians, and kids whose parents insist on reading the books first) who would disagree with you there.
I wouldn't call it a quantum leap, but I do agree with C. S. Lewis who said (I'm paraphrasing here, can't find the exact quote), if a book is worth reading when you're five, it's worth reading when you're fifty.
Knowing Rowling's punning nomenclature, "Hallows" could be a pun on "hollows" (in the sense of a small, steep valley) / "hallowed [ground]". It's also an old word for a Catholic/Anglican saint, so it may have something to do with that.
Either way, or even if I'm off base on both counts, I'm definitely on tenterhooks...
The article isn't clear (and neither is the PubMed abstract on the study itself -- search for 17159008 to get the exact abstract), but after reading the abstract, I think TFA's headline is misleading. The study doesn't in fact seem to have addressed longevity, it addressed risk of death -- not the same thing at all. One's risk of death is higher the older the one gets. One's longevity is also higher the older one gets. However, a reduced risk of death over a particular span of years does not necessarily translate to a longer life.
So I'll rephrase my question: In the various studies they meta-analyzed, were the ages of the participants comparable?
A hypothetical situation: Say one group studied (with a high drinking rate and a relatively low risk of death) is aged 20-40, one group (with very high drinking rate and a fairly high risk of death) is aged 20-25, one group (with moderate drinking and a moderate risk of death) aged 30-50, and one group (with virtually no drinking and a very high risk of death) aged 60-80. A meta-analysis of these three studies that did NOT correct for age would show the results touted by TFA, but those results would be badly skewed.
It's entirely possible -- likely, even, I hope -- that this meta-analysis did in fact correct for age. But neither TFA nor the abstract addresses that question, alas. (The abstract does mention "adjusted and non-adjusted data", but isn't clear on what adjusting they did.)
I'll add one more way things could be spoiled: I don't see any mention in the article that they corrected for age. Maybe older adults drink less, and (being older) die sooner, while the young (who are perhaps more likely to drink more) survive for the simple fact of their youth (or is that what you meant by your 4th bullet point?)
I have the opposite problem. I'm openly gay, but nobody seems to notice. I'm an inveterate pack rat and an incorrigible slob. My house is a disaster area (you don't want to know how long it's been since I knew where the vacuum cleaner was), my attire is rumpled no matter how hard I try to look natty, and I often have to be reminded how long it's been since I shaved. My desk at work wins the "CLEAN IT UP" award year after year at performance evaluations. I have no discriminating taste for wine (I like it all), can't stand scotch. I couldn't arrange flowers or accessorize a wardrobe to save my life.
Luckily, my boyfriend doesn't seem to mind at all, so no worries...
Sorry, as head cheerleader for the Latin grammar nazi team, I'd like to point out that it translates better as "What you are, I was. What I am, you will be."
Even within that trio, religion has been a source of progress. Look at the Muslim astronomers, the Christian philosophers, the Jewish yeshivas. The vast majority of colleges and universities in the Western world, and a good many of the hospitals, were founded by religious organizations. Much of the great art, music, literature, film, and architecture in the world was inspired, wholly or in part, by the religious impulse, whether from that trio or from other, earlier Western religions: the Canterbury Tales, the cathedrals of Europe, Handel's Messiah, the Song of Solomon, the Parthenon, the Kalevala, the Dome of the Rock, the Lord of the Rings, much Greek sculpture, the pyramids, the Mormon Tabernacle, Paradise Lost, Ben Hur, the Eddas, Sufi poetry, Allegri's Miserere, the Iliad, Fiddler on the Roof, the Ka'ba, the Taj Mahal, the Venus of Willendorf, perhaps Stonehenge -- and all of those are off the top of my head.
But you're right -- the GP is incorrect anyway, and I'm preaching (as it were) to the choir.;-)
More than just hobbies and areas of expertise. Try finding a small town in a Hollywood movie where the people act anything at all like the people in a real-life small town. Or family life -- I'm from a family of twelve kids, and we always laughed ourselves silly over the things that Hollywood thinks large families do (Mrs. Brady bringing home two cars full of groceries to feed six kids for a week sticks in my head as particularly funny, unless Alice was eating a lot more than she let on, and all three girls were bulimic compulsive eaters...)
Boy, tell me about it. Ever see Desk Set? Spencer Tracy is a computer expert bringing in a computer to replace librarian Katharine Hepburn. As both a librarian and a geek, that movie drives me up a wall.
That movie got everything wrong -- what librarians do and how they do it (and for whom), in addition to all the misconceptions you mention about computers and the inane morals.
Dang. One of my favorite movies. Go figure. Now I gotta go watch it again...
My niece (who just turned 21) was one of the incubator babies who wasn't allowed to be picked up, and we all felt good about how solicitous the hospital was of her health. But by the time my twin nephews were born (just 5 years ago), everything was different about the way the same hospital treated them.
7 pounds at 13 weeks early is laughable indeed, and you're absolutely right about the size. But in recent years, they've learned that the previous practice of protecting premature infants by keeping them isolated in an incubator was usually a big mistake. I gather it turned out that depriving preemies of parental touch -- direct, unmediated touch, not touch-through-a-rubber-glove -- greatly increases the odds of failure-to-thrive and of SIDS in later life, and may contribute to the emotional problems and autoimmune disorders common (although not universal) in preemie kids. (My niece has asthma and tons of allergies; not so for the twins.)
So while they definitely got some pretty significant things wrong, the mother holding the premature baby wasn't one of them. (Now, if she was doing so with unsterilized attire and outside of the pediatric ICU, then there's even more fodder for ridicule.)
Flamebait??? How the hell is this flamebait? What are the mods smoking?
Aside from the mention of racism (and really -- "the most racist thing [you] have ever read"?!? Come, now), I can't see anything remotely flammable here. If I had mod points I'd mod this "insightful", but I'd use my line-item veto on the "racist" bit.
# People spell the names of famous artists incorrectly.
I agree with your general points, but I had to jump on this one. It's amusing that you picked on the
spelling of "Shakespeare", considering the well-documented history of the variant spellings even in the Bard's day (and even by the Bard himself, by some accounts).
If you have the ability to generate passwords -- to change them without knowing what they are -- then all of those events are covered, without the employee having to surrender some privacy.
Having my own password, known only to me, not only helps me keep secrets, but also protects me and helps keep the organization running (relatively) smoothly.
I've worked in the past with people who would not have been above, say, thinking it would be funny to sign Ed in marketing up for eleventy-ump lists about talking horse sitcoms; or, say, logging into the e-mail account of someone they had a grudge against and deleting information needed for them to do their jobs; or even, say, sending abusive missives around that made it look like their unrequited stalkee had an insane grudge against a high muckamuck who could fire them.
I'm also in a profession in which the confidentiality of our clients is a matter of both professional ethics and state law, which are in agreement that no employee may disclose to another employee any information about a client that the other employee doesn't need to know for his/her duties. Not allowing me to "keep secrets" is a violation of the rights of the clients I deal with.
It's more akin to allowing me to lock my desk drawer at night and keep the key on my own ring. Sure, very few desk locks can't be picked easily, but it affords me some peace of mind that I'll be able to do my job with reasonably little chance of interference or unauthorized snooping.
Heck, you don't even have to change the password to read the mail. The IT person in charge of our mail server requires everyone to give him their passwords "in case anything happens". (What "anything" could be that would require him to have our passwords is never stated, and the answer is evaded when the question is asked.) The buzzword-addled control freak of a PHB who supervises him backs him on this and has enough power to enforce it.
Once a year he comes around with his clipboard full of nebby questions, including e-mail passwords. I give him mine cheerfully, and then promptly change it and "forget" to tell him. But still, policies like this are the reason I'm shopping for a new job...
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot make a distinction between "your beer" and the illusion thereof, beyond your simply claiming it so, therefore the distinction is pointless.
;-)
So I'll drink it for you.
Are you implying that HP & Lewis's books fail to appeal to adults? I know an awful lot of adults (not to mention publisher's marketing departments, bookstore staff, librarians, and kids whose parents insist on reading the books first) who would disagree with you there.
I wouldn't call it a quantum leap, but I do agree with C. S. Lewis who said (I'm paraphrasing here, can't find the exact quote), if a book is worth reading when you're five, it's worth reading when you're fifty.
*smacks forehead*
Of course, you're right. I think my brain was addled by trying to reduce my risk of dying.
I'm not a demanding fan. I'd've settled for a hefty chunk of the advance from the new book. That would be enough of a Christmas present for me. :-)
Knowing Rowling's punning nomenclature, "Hallows" could be a pun on "hollows" (in the sense of a small, steep valley) / "hallowed [ground]". It's also an old word for a Catholic/Anglican saint, so it may have something to do with that.
Either way, or even if I'm off base on both counts, I'm definitely on tenterhooks...
So you're suggesting that causation causes correlation?
The article isn't clear (and neither is the PubMed abstract on the study itself -- search for 17159008 to get the exact abstract), but after reading the abstract, I think TFA's headline is misleading. The study doesn't in fact seem to have addressed longevity, it addressed risk of death -- not the same thing at all. One's risk of death is higher the older the one gets. One's longevity is also higher the older one gets. However, a reduced risk of death over a particular span of years does not necessarily translate to a longer life.
So I'll rephrase my question: In the various studies they meta-analyzed, were the ages of the participants comparable?
A hypothetical situation: Say one group studied (with a high drinking rate and a relatively low risk of death) is aged 20-40, one group (with very high drinking rate and a fairly high risk of death) is aged 20-25, one group (with moderate drinking and a moderate risk of death) aged 30-50, and one group (with virtually no drinking and a very high risk of death) aged 60-80. A meta-analysis of these three studies that did NOT correct for age would show the results touted by TFA, but those results would be badly skewed.
It's entirely possible -- likely, even, I hope -- that this meta-analysis did in fact correct for age. But neither TFA nor the abstract addresses that question, alas. (The abstract does mention "adjusted and non-adjusted data", but isn't clear on what adjusting they did.)
I'll add one more way things could be spoiled: I don't see any mention in the article that they corrected for age. Maybe older adults drink less, and (being older) die sooner, while the young (who are perhaps more likely to drink more) survive for the simple fact of their youth (or is that what you meant by your 4th bullet point?)
I have the opposite problem. I'm openly gay, but nobody seems to notice. I'm an inveterate pack rat and an incorrigible slob. My house is a disaster area (you don't want to know how long it's been since I knew where the vacuum cleaner was), my attire is rumpled no matter how hard I try to look natty, and I often have to be reminded how long it's been since I shaved. My desk at work wins the "CLEAN IT UP" award year after year at performance evaluations. I have no discriminating taste for wine (I like it all), can't stand scotch. I couldn't arrange flowers or accessorize a wardrobe to save my life.
Luckily, my boyfriend doesn't seem to mind at all, so no worries...
Well, more literally: "You, I was. I, you will be."
PS: Personally, I prefer "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Not just pretty words...
PPS: Why, is my skirt too short?
Sorry, as head cheerleader for the Latin grammar nazi team, I'd like to point out that it translates better as "What you are, I was. What I am, you will be."
So there.
Don't worry, they (and the inevitable sequels -- these ARE nerd movies, after all) are probably already available via torrent. ;-)
Even within that trio, religion has been a source of progress. Look at the Muslim astronomers, the Christian philosophers, the Jewish yeshivas. The vast majority of colleges and universities in the Western world, and a good many of the hospitals, were founded by religious organizations. Much of the great art, music, literature, film, and architecture in the world was inspired, wholly or in part, by the religious impulse, whether from that trio or from other, earlier Western religions: the Canterbury Tales, the cathedrals of Europe, Handel's Messiah, the Song of Solomon, the Parthenon, the Kalevala, the Dome of the Rock, the Lord of the Rings, much Greek sculpture, the pyramids, the Mormon Tabernacle, Paradise Lost, Ben Hur, the Eddas, Sufi poetry, Allegri's Miserere, the Iliad, Fiddler on the Roof, the Ka'ba, the Taj Mahal, the Venus of Willendorf, perhaps Stonehenge -- and all of those are off the top of my head.
;-)
But you're right -- the GP is incorrect anyway, and I'm preaching (as it were) to the choir.
More than just hobbies and areas of expertise. Try finding a small town in a Hollywood movie where the people act anything at all like the people in a real-life small town. Or family life -- I'm from a family of twelve kids, and we always laughed ourselves silly over the things that Hollywood thinks large families do (Mrs. Brady bringing home two cars full of groceries to feed six kids for a week sticks in my head as particularly funny, unless Alice was eating a lot more than she let on, and all three girls were bulimic compulsive eaters...)
You know, the first language I learned way back when was COBOL.
;-)
Wow. That's way cool. My parents only spoke English.
Boy, tell me about it. Ever see Desk Set? Spencer Tracy is a computer expert bringing in a computer to replace librarian Katharine Hepburn. As both a librarian and a geek, that movie drives me up a wall.
That movie got everything wrong -- what librarians do and how they do it (and for whom), in addition to all the misconceptions you mention about computers and the inane morals.
Dang. One of my favorite movies. Go figure. Now I gotta go watch it again...
Yeah! And, and, and they learned astrogation by watching the starfield screensaver!
Doting uncle of three preemies speaking here:
My niece (who just turned 21) was one of the incubator babies who wasn't allowed to be picked up, and we all felt good about how solicitous the hospital was of her health. But by the time my twin nephews were born (just 5 years ago), everything was different about the way the same hospital treated them.
7 pounds at 13 weeks early is laughable indeed, and you're absolutely right about the size. But in recent years, they've learned that the previous practice of protecting premature infants by keeping them isolated in an incubator was usually a big mistake. I gather it turned out that depriving preemies of parental touch -- direct, unmediated touch, not touch-through-a-rubber-glove -- greatly increases the odds of failure-to-thrive and of SIDS in later life, and may contribute to the emotional problems and autoimmune disorders common (although not universal) in preemie kids. (My niece has asthma and tons of allergies; not so for the twins.)
So while they definitely got some pretty significant things wrong, the mother holding the premature baby wasn't one of them. (Now, if she was doing so with unsterilized attire and outside of the pediatric ICU, then there's even more fodder for ridicule.)
Why punish the desk?
Flamebait??? How the hell is this flamebait? What are the mods smoking?
Aside from the mention of racism (and really -- "the most racist thing [you] have ever read"?!? Come, now), I can't see anything remotely flammable here. If I had mod points I'd mod this "insightful", but I'd use my line-item veto on the "racist" bit.
# People spell the names of famous artists incorrectly.
I agree with your general points, but I had to jump on this one. It's amusing that you picked on the spelling of "Shakespeare", considering the well-documented history of the variant spellings even in the Bard's day (and even by the Bard himself, by some accounts).
If you have the ability to generate passwords -- to change them without knowing what they are -- then all of those events are covered, without the employee having to surrender some privacy.
Having my own password, known only to me, not only helps me keep secrets, but also protects me and helps keep the organization running (relatively) smoothly.
I've worked in the past with people who would not have been above, say, thinking it would be funny to sign Ed in marketing up for eleventy-ump lists about talking horse sitcoms; or, say, logging into the e-mail account of someone they had a grudge against and deleting information needed for them to do their jobs; or even, say, sending abusive missives around that made it look like their unrequited stalkee had an insane grudge against a high muckamuck who could fire them.
I'm also in a profession in which the confidentiality of our clients is a matter of both professional ethics and state law, which are in agreement that no employee may disclose to another employee any information about a client that the other employee doesn't need to know for his/her duties. Not allowing me to "keep secrets" is a violation of the rights of the clients I deal with.
It's more akin to allowing me to lock my desk drawer at night and keep the key on my own ring. Sure, very few desk locks can't be picked easily, but it affords me some peace of mind that I'll be able to do my job with reasonably little chance of interference or unauthorized snooping.
Nah, you can just sign up for lots of telemarketing lists. Then the phone will vibrate all the time!
... I'm speaking hypothetically here, of course.
Er
Heck, you don't even have to change the password to read the mail. The IT person in charge of our mail server requires everyone to give him their passwords "in case anything happens". (What "anything" could be that would require him to have our passwords is never stated, and the answer is evaded when the question is asked.) The buzzword-addled control freak of a PHB who supervises him backs him on this and has enough power to enforce it.
...
Once a year he comes around with his clipboard full of nebby questions, including e-mail passwords. I give him mine cheerfully, and then promptly change it and "forget" to tell him. But still, policies like this are the reason I'm shopping for a new job