Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Use the Tmobile Music Unlimited prepaid plan (Score 4, Interesting) 58

It's $50 ($55 with tax).

I get unlimited music and 1 gig of data.

Recently right as the month ends I'm hitting 900mb (and that's with youtube videos).

They tried to upsell me to the post paid plan.

It was $70 ($77 with tax). And otherwise the same plan.

I looked at the salesperson and explained my plan again.

She went, "oh.. right" and stopped.

Do you have a great plan to recommend? I'd love to hear it. Every month, I have the option of changing plans or even services. I love it.

Comment Re:Captain Kirk says... (Score 1) 291

From elsewhere..

  Dr. Michael Roizen, MD , Internal Medicine, answered
Although many studies have looked at the family history of disease in relation to the onset of disease, only three major studies have correlated overall longevity trends between parents and their children. The Framingham Study, the "Termite" Study, and the Alameda County Study looked at the age of parental death to determine if it predicted longevity of the offspring. Did the two correlate? Yes, but minimally. Each study showed a minor effect. The Framingham Study, the most comprehensive of the three, found about a 6 percent correlation between life span of the parents and life span of their offspring, meaning that many other factors affect longevity as well. If both your parents lived past the age of seventy-five, the odds that you will live past seventy-five increase to some extent. But to what extent? (Note that we are discussing, for the most part, death related to disease. If a parent dies at age forty in a car accident, for example, that provides little information about how long the child will live, although alcohol-induced accidents are a possible exception.)

If you are a man and both of your parents died before the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge (physiologic age) will be as much as 4.2 years older. If you are a woman, your RealAge will be as much as 3.5 years older. If both parents lived past the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge will be 4.2 years younger if you are man, and 3.5 years younger if you are a woman. If no first-degree relative (parent, brother, sister) had breast, colon, or ovarian cancer diagnosed early, you are an additional 0.2 to eleven years younger than if your siblings or parents had those diagnoses. Some genetic conditions, such as being a carrier of the BRCA-1 breast cancer gene, can make your RealAge as much as 17 years older. This is one of the instances where genetics can make a big difference.

Comment Re:Captain Kirk says... (Score 3, Insightful) 291

Given a young healthy pain free body, you would never finish your interests.

There would always be new "pokemon go"'s coming along to get excited about.
New musical instruments to master.
New places to see (because they are changing if you live long enough. The world today is almost completely different than it was in 1935.
New inventions to be excited about.
A much longer investment horizon mean you'd probably go through being wealthy and being poor multiple times (I was wiped out in the panic of 2160, 2310, 2470, the big one of 3107, and was broke again in 3705. But today in 4212, I'm comfortably wealthy.)

People who are old, people who are unhappy, people who know they will be old and unhappy in only 30 years make it sound bad to live for a thousand years. But the last 1000 years rocked.

Even with the expected collapses of non-renewable resources and likely associated rapid population collapse, you'd then have an awesome world with fewer neat things but less crowding and get to see all the areas ruined by overuse recover and see the seas verdant with life again as it was in the 1870's.

Comment Advise you get a "throwdown phone" (Score 2) 42

Because putting your phone number out there will probably pollute it and soon you'll be getting telemarketing calls 24x7 effectively killing the number.

They'll promise to take care of your number but they'll sell it to a "business partner" or they'll lose the list due to poor security or when they go bankrupt it will be sold as an asset.

I've had multiple email and one phone number polluted like this so far. I don't trust'em any more.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 2) 689

The trend towards war is down.

But as we run out of non-renewable resources over the next 100 years, global warming won't matter.

The loss of pesticides, fertilizers, stainless steel, etc. all will limit our growth, lead to population declines, and possibly pretty terrible war (we have a lot of ugly stuff we agree not to use but as history shows, we will use during total war).

80 years from now, we may be at 12 billion and 80% likely to still be rising.

200 years from now, the earth is more likely to have a population of 3 billion than 20 billion. To avoid that we'll have to invent a lot of new technologies really fast as we hit multiple limits. Consumption of non-renewable resources by a population of 12 billion will be terrific.

I think most of the breakdown happens after I die. But I think we do have a breakdown- things have gotten visibly more brittle over the last 20 years. There's not as much slack in the system as their used to be. Which is fine until you have a problem.

Comment Re:Ahh, science (Score 1) 689

Predicting the future is not "science", even though the people making the predictions might have scientific credentials.

The models that the so-called "climate scientists" create are based on curve fitting techniques which attempt to correlate observed data with a hypothesized cause/effect relationship with other observed data.

            "Global Warming" = aX +bY +cZ ...

The scientists use the historical data to find the values of the coefficients a,b,c and then predict the magnitude that a change in X,Y,Z will have on "Global Warming". These models have led to all sorts of predictions that have been proven false. The scientists are constantly adjusting their models as new observations are accumulated. They also massage the historical data to fit the models in order to suggest that the model would have had predictive value in the past "If we massage the data accumulated before year 2000 and apply our model, it correctly predicts climate observations made between 2001 and 2015" etc.

These are the exact same mathematical techniques that economists use to make predictions about how something like GDP would be affected by tax policy, government spending, infrastructure spending, oil prices, etc. etc. Very few people would suggest that economists are doing "science".

Comment Funny bit was the turnover (Score 1) 193

The feeling was that young people had a better promotion path.
Old people might quit.

The reality was that young people repeatedly quit after 2 years so their resume would look like they were "go getters".

The old people kept the department going (including one in his 70s).

The young people turned over like crazy.

Comment Re:The problem isn't that they're old... (Score 2) 193

Expense isn't the issue. OIder employees with similar experience (and similar compensation) are also discriminated against.

It's really blatant in some of the ads.. "Looking for YOUNG, dynamic, candidate who works to deadline" has actually be used by someone who was stupid in placing their ad. Usually they use dog whistles or (Infosys) require your resume have the date you graduated high school (so they can cull you before you wall in the door - and yes it's illegal to do that).

IT is incredibly low status, good play, but lacks a career path for 90% of workers. 20 years is insufficient. Being dumped on the street at 52 when you haven't been saving over half your salary means homelessness and dog food (or public assistance) by the time you are 70.

Avoid IT.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There are some good people in it, but the orchestra as a whole is equivalent to a gang bent on destruction." -- John Cage, composer