Great! With p=2E-65, studies in psychology aren't totally random.
The original question was if they did any privacy assessment report of the impact of using drones. I think by saying that they can't find any such report, the answer seems pretty obvious....
And if that comet then hit earth, do you know what a huge catastrophe that would have caused?
Then we would be saying 'ah but couldn't they just use solar power?'
And why is being hit in the head by a brick a better way to die?
Replying to myself.
The relevant stats are about years of healthy life, and not life expectancy. That didn't change at all.
So whatever effect there is has nothing to do with dying, and only with being sick (Huh?)
Years of healthy life has a lot to do with wording of questions, and just looking over the italy stats in the raw
data, the years of the anomaly are also the years in which the data table states that the question was worded differently.
So, my conclusion is: nothing to see here, move on.
This paper is in its infancy. It is somewhat garbled, the methods don't really specify the methods.
The methods are basically "we graphed mortality over time". But you can't really criticize it much,
because it is not published, and probably not submitted yet. The only question is why did it get to slashdot?
The most likely explanation for the effect at this stage is some kind of error. Either in the calculation,
or as the authors point out, in the wording of the questions (which probably would be a good idea to
test before this paper is published ?)
"Standardized translations of the questionnaire have been used; nevertheless it is likely that linguistic or cultural differences, as well as changes in the wording of questions, have influenced the way the respondents indicate a longstanding health problem or disability and their way of communicating the types of restrictions caused by this problem"
Or, in the population measured (migration from East-Block countries?) or many other possible problems.
All these I'd bet much higher chances than a real health effect.
I don't think this is true for some devices. As the grandparent said (me), for the Samsung Note 2, charging current depends strongly on the USB cable used - same charger will charge at different rates depending on the cable. (And sometimes the same cable + charger will charge at different rate depending on luck).
I don't think it has to do with voltage drop. A cable usually will not show a voltage drop ~0 resistance for 2m of cable. And, same cable will charge other devices without any problem. A cable might burn out with too much current. Maybe that's the worry? I haven't really heard of that happening....
Even the originally supplied cable is rejected sometimes. And, if you get a bad charging rate, just unplug and replug the cable for another roll of the dice.
No, I think it is a simple bug in the charging control in the phone.
Samsung seems to measure the "reliability" of the supply or the cable, and limits power based on those values. Then the same supply will charge at different rates depending on the cable used.
How will they decide if the goal was met? I could easily envision a case where I ask for something, developer implements it with a slight change.
Now, I'm still unhappy about the result, but developer thinks he finished the job.
Maybe they tried to buy them to prevent exactly this from happening?
go to a library, or look up the articles and e-Mail the authors for reprints.