Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Absolutely wrong: it did differentiate! (Score 1) 120

"We reclassified non-drinkers as former drinkers if they had any record of drinking or a history of alcohol abuse in their entire clinical record entered on CPRD before study entry."

This will not capture a significant percentage of the former drinkers who are non drinkers. So contrary to your assertion, the current study did not truly separate out the two categories.

However, their defined data (raw data) contains former drinkers as well. It is just that the way their analysis (reclassification) for the result merges former drinkers with non-drinkers to make it easier. It is similar to given 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, I want to reclassify it to 1, 3, and 5 to make it more distinctive.

We used the most recent record of alcohol consumption in the five years before entry into the study to classify participants’ drinking behaviour. In light of current debates on the U or J shaped relation observed between consumption and aggregated cardiovascular disease outcomes we defined five categories of drinking: non-drinkers (Read codes such as "teetotaller" and "non-drinker"), former drinkers (those with codes for "stopped drinking alcohol" and/or "ex-drinker"), occasional drinkers (those with codes for "drinks rarely" and/or "drinks occasionally"), current moderate drinkers (codes such as "alcohol intake within recommended sensible limits" and "light drinker"), and heavy drinkers (codes including "alcohol intake above recommended sensible drinking limits" and "hazardous alcohol use").

This reclassification does not invalidate their study or make it look as bad as your impression is. Also, if you really look at the trend in their figures, you should see that it is OK to merge former drinkers with non-drinkers. This study shows a proof of concept and could be refined for further studies.

Comment Re:Two glasses of wine per day would wreck me (Score 1) 120

1 glass of wine doesn't even use up your quiescent ADH levels. It is quickly metabolized. The third and fourth glasses are past the point that the metabolization rate is determined by the production rate of ADH and so stays around a lot longer.

Does this apply to those who turn red after drinking even a 1/2 glass of wine as well???

Comment Re:HUGE Opportunity (Score 1) 195

If we can just raise the temperature enough to melt the ice in Antarctica, it will become habitable year-round. It could then be opened up for real estate development. Apartment complexes, strip malls, industrial parks...the possibilities are mind-boggling.

I believe the parent post is a joke (and should be marked as funny). Some countries that have shore line could easily lose the land because the sea level will rise and that is not really a gain for them in most ways...

Comment Re:Sounds nice! (Score 1) 123

I'm not sure the argument flies with actual humans. Remember, we're not rational agents.

Just look at many African countries, where everything is in constant shortage. They shouldn't be having kids, right? And yet they have way more than highly industrialized, rich countries. A lot of them will die, but more will survive with just the bare minimums, exacerbating the already evident shortages. Sure, eventually the population would reach a tipping point, but that would play out as more children dying than surviving, causing the population to stabilize. That's utterly inhumane and not something you can rely on for population control.

Well, they are actually rational, but their way of thought could be different from yours. You should never attempt to compare the view from the 1st and 3rd world countries. They are 2 different cultures and often times a comparison won't work.

The way they think is that they need kids because they hope/expect that their kids will grow old enough to help them work. Eventually, when the parents get older, their kids will take care of them. Then they need to have as many as they can because, as you said, some of their kids may never become adults (die). It is more self-center thought, but it is still rational and comes from a different angle of point of view...

Comment Re:Sounds nice! (Score 1) 123

Anything to combat aging.. just look at the amount of resources we use to take care of the sick and elderly. And as a big bonus everyone would have much better life-quality with less sickness etc.

You assumed that the resources we use to take care of sick/elderly will become available if we can live longer with healthier life? What do you think we need to pay to get the healthier life? Nothing is free. They just replace drugs that prolong (not cure) your life with this drug that slows down your aging... No, you won't have extra money to spend regardless...

Comment Re:"Ride-sharing".... (Score 2) 67

But in a car you're going the same place as me, so we're sharing.

Please tell me if this is the same as a ride sharing... You are a driver for Uber. You turn and leave the driver app on while you are at home watching TV because you don't have anywhere to go but want/hope to get an Uber job. Then you get a ping of assignment for you to pick up and drive someone to a place. Is the destination of the Uber's client the destination you intend to go before the ping? If you want to answer it is, then what are you intending to go there for?

The thing is, Uber used to be a ride sharing when it was started. However, it has evolved to something else that is NOTHING close to ride sharing. Yes, it has evolved into a taxi cap but still wants to pretend (and advertise) to be ride sharing...

Comment Re:Unsurprising (Score 1) 38

In practice, of course, you can patent pretty much anything you want if you put your mind to it, and the vast majority of granted patents are never implemented in an actual product and never make any money at all.

Actually, not exactly. You can try to patent anything you want if you put your mind to it, but the whole approval process is not easy. It is costly and takes a long time. As a result, you wouldn't easily get your invention patented but rather waste your money and time. However, I agree that vast majority of granted patents are useless and/or never implemented...

Comment Re:Junk Science (Score 1) 366

Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.

Well, good excuse from you. Most peer reviewed papers/researches are behind a pay wall. If you have academic access, then it is not difficult to find that there are many researches on the topic. Anyway your mind has already been set to not believe, so nothing will change your mind regardless. Why bother giving this kind of excuse?

Comment Re:Scale it... (Score 1) 266

Indeed. A human being can not even perceive a difference between 1 millisecond and 1 microsecond.

But, repeated a million times, the former turns into 15 minutes, whereas the latter is still merely a second. Food for thought...

And you said as if most programs/applications nowadays required that many loops, or even a minute long to complete a run. Also often times, programs/applications are web base and/or deal with database stuff that always have a bottle neck issue else where as the GP already stated.

Anyway in programming, I always prefer correctness over speed (and I believe all computer scientists prefer the same). You can always try to optimize a program as long as it runs correctly. If a program isn't running correctly, it is simply a garbage regardless how fast it can run.

Comment Re:Conversely... (Score 1) 242

I built a gate this afternoon, along the back fence of the dogyard. Because we're getting a new puppy on Thursday. Yesterday I bought some 1 x 6 treated boards and sawed them to length. This afternoon I went out and dug around in the junkbox parts and found enough screws and hardware to fabricate all that wood into a gate.

So don't tell me I "can't build anything."

I can also whip out the soldering iron and build a whole small computer for a needed purpose. For instance, to build a data acquisition node, for one of the many projects I have in mind. I licenses for all the software to create the code block to push into said small computer.

You need to understand patents first. Your example has NOTHING to do with infringing a patent until you start distributing the "thing" or use it to make money, then patents can be enforced and strip monetary from you. If you implement anything but not distribute it or use it in any way to make money, then it is very unlikely that you would be sued for infringement because there is slim to no damage on the patent holder.

Comment Re:Smart Burglars (Score 1) 71

But if you could package this attack into a smartphone app and sell it to a burglar... they wouldn't have to be all that bright, would they?

It is not that simple... I can easily counter your statement using simple logics.

If you were the app developer, then you would know that you have to live in the dark world all the time; besides, you must have very good knowledge of being rogue. If you don't, you can be caught and sued (and could go to jail for this activity). Besides, this type of vulnerability could be found and patched in a short period of time, which in turn renders the app useless for patched devices. Then you would have to update the app which may work a little longer. If you don't update your app, then your reputation will go way down and you won't be able to sell anything later. The buyers also have to be knowledgeable enough to know where to get your app for installation.

To me, at the current time, no experienced hacker would care to do it because of selling/up keeping the app just for measly revenues. In other words, it is not worth the effort...

Comment Re:odd thing I've noticed (Score 1) 319

Fair enough, your story is: You never saw a globe in school. I'm still calling bullshit, they aren't expensive.

Hmm... I did NOT see a globe in my mid/high school back in 1980s (not in the US). And I know that it was very expensive back then in my country. Schools couldn't afford one; besides, teachers wouldn't want to spend that much money that may easily be destroyed by students... Different culture...

Comment Re:Why would you? (Score 2) 143

Exactly! Also, when does updating apps/OS become equivalent to secure? I agree that updating could make the device more secure because the new patch is supposed to close/fix security bugs. However, there are times that new update actually opens/allows new security holes/bugs as well. TFA is just an advertisement to influent people to keep updating apps/OS...

Comment Re:Loneliness (Score 1) 193

Loneliness is a significant health risk which causes a person's death risk to increase.

There's that old correlation/causation thing again. A depressed and withdrawn person is going to be lonely. But the cause of the lonliness is alomst certainly the depression. A person such as myself functions better and recharges the mental batteries by being alone. Alone != lonely.

I don't understand how you try to invalidate GP statement. Alone is surely not equal to loneliness. Loneliness is a feeling (mental). Alone is simply a state of being (physical).

Also, depression should not be the cause of loneliness. It should be in reverse. Loneliness MAY LEAD to depression, and it is a symptom of depression. Some people may sometimes feel lonely, but they MAY NOT be depressed (and often they aren't). However, depressed people often times (if not all the time) feel lonely because they tend to (mentally) separate themselves from people/social.

Having kids gives you someone to care about, and someone who cares about you, and someone you see on a regular basis. That does a lot to decrease your loneliness.

You're taking your own mental state and insisting it is everyone's. It isn't. Western society at present favors the extrovert, who needs to be around people, and suffers when they aren't. Present day social pressures have made having wife and children extremely risky for men. So it is completely possible to have a rich life without the present day entanglements of a spouse and children.

This is another part of your reply that is confusing to me. I don't understand why you think GP is shoveling the idea to you. To me, instead, it is a statement which has some merits. If you simply change the word "kids" to something else, such as "close friends," "pets," "partner," etc., you still get the similar meaning.

Slashdot Top Deals

A debugged program is one for which you have not yet found the conditions that make it fail. -- Jerry Ogdin

Working...