Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:What could go wrong? (Score 1) 253

Oh because there's currently equality in aging. In some current societies 40 is ripe old age if one is lucky to live that long, while in others, some kids go to school, do no work, have no spouse or kids, live on the support of their parents or take on huge debt till they're around 40. I.e. what's decrepit age one place is the start of social adulthood at another. Still, no war b/c of that... ... though YES there are wars and they're often one reason why people there don't live that long, and wars are fought over control of resources which may lead to better economics so looking at it this way, there's ALREADY social consequences and it's well known, nothing new.

Yes differences will get even more pronounced within specific countries too, but there's already large life expectancy differences according to socioeconomic factors, many decades even in adjacent neighborhoods. There's also the proliferation of tech too, now almost everyone in 1st world countries can have a supercomputer in their pocket.

Comment Re:Rather low bar (Score 1) 253

> "The team also saw improved organ health in normal mice but, because the mice are still living, could not yet say if longevity was extended."

Well, more accurately, perhaps the experiment hasn't been running long enough to even see if extended longevity kicked in. The animals don't actually need to die for the experiment to demonstrate life extension. In fact, the longer the animals are alive, the better :-)

Slightly related I'm always appalled at published life expectancy numbers. The only solid measure is obtained when a population dies out, and statistics can be calculated on that basis. But most people who die were born 50-90 years ago. Moreover, to get good statistics, it's worth looking at birth years for which there are few or no surviving members, i.e. going back around100 years. When we talk about life expectancy for younger folks e.g. at birth or even at 40, the life expectancy of people who were born 100 years ago is quite irrelevant - different diet, habits, wars, medicine etc.

I'm wondering if there are models and estimates for life expectancy in a forward-looking way, perhaps with alternative scenarios for future medical advances.

Comment Re:So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 212

> Without Russian, China, and India going along with it, it would probably fail.

Why, any non-participating countries can just be throttled as the source country is known and participation in the DDoS is known (if it isn't, the agreement is useless anyway).

Comment Summary (Score 2) 106

1. so there WAS internet to begin with (in the gov't building)
2. he installed a pringles can type directional wifi antenna, like my father and thousands elsewhere
3. he worked out some network for further sharing
4. pirating, etc. source known?
5. somehow fiber optics then just appered and later on some T1? How is this *not* being served by telecom, and who absorbs network usage costs?

Comment Interesting from another aspect (Score 2) 56

The news is interesting not so much for its contents, but for its illumination of a gap in my knowledge. I'm nowhere near astronomy, so I didn't know that in the past we were _not_ aware of the presence of asymmetric molecules in space. If someone asked, I'd have responded, "sure there are probably asymmetric molecules in space, why not" so in some sense, I might have given a more correct answer than someone who knew more about space. The downside is that when you not only learn from a piece of news, but it highlights a gap in your understanding before, then it's quite humbling. It's a bit like waking up in Vegas, and you're told you divorced while you were drunk, yet you aren't aware of getting married in the first place.

Comment Re:Accounting for shrinkage (no not that kind...) (Score 1) 120

> It's annoying to people like me that come from an engineering/physics background where terms tend to be more standardized.

Having done financial risk management etc. with eng and accounting degrees myself, I can see the pompousness and arbitrariness of much terminology in finance, esp. where consumers need to be misled or peacocking status can be gained by throwing around 'financology' terms. I'm with Paul Wilmott on the arrogance aspect. I can also see a lot of normal things in life as complex financial derivatives that can be deconstructed and recombined with one another, still balked at this notion of self-insurance for the reason you mention. It qualifies as "acceptable risk" and is a modest, fairly constant factor in business rather than rare, high-loss events that warrant for risk pooling, so more similar to material expenses or payroll (some if not most theft is by employees). Supply chain issues and lawsuits on the other hand...

Comment Re:Self insurance (Score 1) 120

> Probably true but one has to account for all the possible outcomes.

Sure. On the basis of prior probabilities or actual events (assuming Apple Stores register buying intention that evaporates due to lack of stock at the moment). I.e. we apparently agree that it's not correct to just blindly calculate with the retail value.

> Yes Apple is self insured [wikipedia]

These links do little to further the claim that these represent self-insurance. I thought it's something more specific - as your wikipedia link seems to suggest too. With your quite broad definition of self-insurance, everyone is self-insuring left and right. For example, if I'm planning a vacation, but don't immediately reserve my flight, then I run the risk of a price hike. If I still don't act on it (by reserving, or by somehow insuring against the possibility of this loss, incurring some hedging cost in the process) then I could say, with your definition, that I self-insure myself, where my assets, future income or cancellation of flight plans act as backup options. Also, when I skip breakfast and am optimistic that I can go out for lunch at noon, I'm self-insuring myself against starvation by means of calorie reserves.

So I think it's quite meaningless to use this term unless there's wing to wing handling for specifically this risk category , e.g. AAPL formally managing a risk process with components such as FMEA, earmarking and pooling funds, making provisions that alter their periodic P&L, using periodic accruals/deferrals (to account for planned vs materialized losses), and incorporate it into their profitability analysis, profit center accounting or funds transfer pricing, all in the framework of comprehensive internal policies and accounting rules governing it. While all these are feasible, and I have no doubt AAPL does have risk management for diverse events, the link you provided is a wiki page that also talks of self-insurance as a specific concept (as opposed to an informal, uncontrolled way of absorbing residual risks) rather than an explanation on why it could be properly called self-insurance. I don't give a flying rat's ass but interested in learning, as I might be wrong on this, it's just I appreciate tangible backup. I think it's conceivable that with their very high gross margin they don't worry about store stealth to the extent a grocery chain would have to, and I believe most of their risk management priorities rarer and more impactful risks, mostly relating to their supply chain, and perhaps forex losses.

Slashdot Top Deals

"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"