Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks. If this were a server processor, I could see the value in an enhanced remote server-kill. Because these are basic home-use processors though, remote kill viruses probably won't get much farther than proof-of-concept.

Botnets are much more lucrative in the malware world - processor uptime is much more valuable than processor downtime.

You know, that one year of the linux desktop we always talk about...

Man, it's so long ago I can't even remember it now.

Ahh - cheers mate, I was also quite surprised.

Thought that was the argumentative standpoint, but after a re-read and the above comment it's clearly not.

I actually wouldn't be terribly surprised if both the income and life expectancy are off. Most countries have an average income that's 2/3rds of their per-capita GDP (which can more accurately be measured by exports) considering South Korea's Per-capita GDP is $1,900, the actual average income is more likely to be closer to $1,250 (not that it is guaranteed to be)

So yes, there are very likely some serious discrepancies with countries like South Korea that view the rest of the world as enemies.

While that may be true, do you think this graph was made off of a census specifically sanctioned within the borders of North Korea by Hans Rosling himself, or do you think he's going by existing census and income information?!

I'm not saying the data is correct, I'm saying that dot in the lower left quadrant of the graph is Afghanistan and not North Korea.

What are you talking about?

While the world's life expectancy has obviously increased, there is a very clear best-fit line that can be drawn at any time with quite obviously a very strong statistical significance.

P.S. here's a great map of life expectancy by country

It's pretty clear the lowest life expectancy in Asia is Afghanistan.

Actually no, it isn't

Given that North Korea has an average life expectancy of 63.8 and a per-capita income of $1,700, that would put it solidly above the 50 year line. The North Korea dot is most likely the one slightly above and to the left of India.

If you ask me, any day I'm productive at work is an odd day.

None of the above.

I work for the government you insensitive clod!

P.S. - the "rank with conservative propaganda" is meant for the parent and not the gp. The gp was merely inciting a partisan comment like the one I originally replied to.
Editing error on my part.

If I had modpoints I'd definitely mark this and the parent what they are - flamebait.

Let's face it, whether it is via donations or via taxed handouts, both systems will create the same type of dependence and when the money dries up they will create the same resentment.

With respect to the parent post - While I don't think complete redistribution of wealth is a wise idea, it's apparent that the parent post ignores the fact that the vast majority of tax money is not given directly back to poor people. Sure, there are programs that do that, but most government programs create large infrastructure projects. Roads, regulatory agencies and military posts are examples. Guess what, construction and maintenance of all of the above create quite a few jobs also.

I'd also like to state the current tax bracketing system is set up based roughly on disposable income, so yes, the wealthy do give up more because they can do so much more comfortably without vastly affecting their quality of life.

With respect to the grandparent - why even bother inciting the argument in the first place? Why not just be happy that a whole lot of money is going to head to people that need it? So basically agree that "redistribution of wealth" is not the appropriate thing to do, but because your post is rank with conservative propaganda I don't see how it's anything but flaimbait.

*CaptainPatent found this review to be helpful*

Climate models != Weather models.

Weather models (which can easily be objectively checked via existing and coming weather patterns) are an attempt to describe the weather on small scale in great detail)

Climate models (which cannot easily be objectively checked via weather data) are an attempt to describe the average weather in an area over a large period of time. The only evidence for or against is over periods of hundreds to thousands of years as regional or even global averages.

The simple fact is climate models have not existed long enough for them to be checked with any great statistical significance, and they are at a huge disadvantage from human nature because people use weather fallacies to discredit climate all the time.

Just because a climate model predicts lower-than-normal wind patterns, doesn't mean the windiest day on record for isolated regions can't happen during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts periods of colder-than-normal climates, doesn't mean the hottest day on record for isolated locations can't occur during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts cloudier-than-normal patterns, doesn't mean the sunniest stretch of weather on record for some regions can't occur during that period without invalidating the model.

This is exactly what happens on a daily basis though. We have an idea that short-term climate models are getting closer and some are more accurate than others, but we don't have enough data to show statistical significance to even decade-length climate models. If you get to century-or-greater climate models, we have historical data and estimations to work off of, but no empirical "check" data to work off of.

The mere suggestion that climate models are not accurately predicting shows you are suffering from this exact same fallacious logic.

There's no need to worry about proliferation... Now excuse me...

Come Mr. Bigglesworth

*places pinky to mouth*

I dunno, I think their last addition to the catalog was still better.