EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

bitrex
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:45 pm   



On 02/08/2019 11:27 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:43 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:43, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.

Very few artists get rich unless some random oligarch takes a real fancy
to their output. Comparatively few make a decent living. Some who are
now very famous names scraped along barely surviving from day to day.

And millions of people still buy Superball lottery tickets.



A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he dreams about owning
a boat, because out there, beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

And it has a CD player

Martin Brown
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:45 pm   



On 08/02/2019 16:27, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:43 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:43, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.

Very few artists get rich unless some random oligarch takes a real fancy
to their output. Comparatively few make a decent living. Some who are
now very famous names scraped along barely surviving from day to day.

And millions of people still buy Superball lottery tickets.


National lotteries are a voluntary tax on the innumerate.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:45 pm   



On Friday, 8 February 2019 12:46:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 07/02/2019 05:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam_at_please.net> wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the
peer reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it
wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of,
99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something
percent.

It doesn't agree with your prejudices - that is entirely different.


whoosh


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Friday, 8 February 2019 14:00:19 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 9:49:57 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 11:33:57 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 8:58:14 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:28:19 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:21:33 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:


a ton of time wasting snipped

Quote:
NT is absolutely right - for once - in saying that such data-gathering should be built into any developed nation's health service, but it has only recently become a practical option, and privacy issues do complicate the process.

The need to ask patients for permission does not stop the process at all.

It patients can opt out at random it shrinks the pool of subjects, and could bias it in unpredictable ways

a percentage opting out is not a problem

Anything that biases the sampling is a problem.


No, a move that increases the sample pool from dozens to 10s or 100s of thousands is not a problem.


Quote:
Ultimately one needs to be realistic about medical research. It's an inherently shall we say messy field, and believing what one is told is generally naive.

more sillyboll snipped


Just a few to start with:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

It's a rather extreme claim, based a rather particular application of the word "false".

A slew of problems:
http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2013/01/holiday-special-year-of-scandals-2012.html

I've already cited Diederik_Stapel. The US is bigger than the Netherlands and a few more rogues are to be expected. It isn't exactly proof that everything that is published is fraudulent or even "false".

there's a whole lot more on those pages than Mr. Stapel.

A few rogues isn't a "whole lot" more.


It's not a few rogues. The articles there show a spread of ways research results can be bent. And given what a poor level of reproducablity we get in medical research results... even you should be able to figure out that a lot of research is at best valueless.


Quote:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844

Peer review does look at timeliness as well as content. Resubmitting old articles isn't probably a good measure. The field does move on.

a team led by University of Virginia’s Brian Nosek repeated 100 psychological experiments and found that only 36% of originally “significant” (in the statistical sense) results were replicated.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/08/psychology-studies-reliability-reproducability-nosek/402466/

They got to pick the 100 psychological experiments they were trying to replicate. Nobody would waste time replicating the the McGurk Effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect

or anything else that is spectacularly reliable.

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

As if NT wasn't already scraping to bottom of the barrel.

There is the point that psychology uses humans as experimental animals, and they aren't good test subjects. One of my friends swore off human subjects as soon as she could and moved over to bats, who were much more reproducible.

Those links only look at some aspects of the problem. There are more major problems elsewhere in the process.

None of which NT will be able to identify.

I identified some in my first undergraduate research project. It became apparent that I could choose to interpret the data either way I wanted, by emphasising different factors & choosing to eliminate differing data due to some non-obvious issues I could choose to either notice or not notice.

Then you weren't doing anything remotely useful. A properly constructed experiment doesn't give you any room to "emphasise different factors". You observe what happens and report it, and you don't get to choose to eliminate inconvenient data.


I see you don't know what I was doing. What's new.
I didn't choose to eliminate inconvenient data, I saw how easy & plausibly deniable it was. Keep up.


> Clearly, you had decided that you could get away with cheating, and didn't realise that this made the exercise a complete waste of time.

whoosh. The whole point I'm making is that it makes it a waste of time.


Quote:
None of the articles I've flagged even touch that stuff.

You might try reading up on psychopathic personality disorders. These are the people who cheat all the time and assume everybody else does too.


not very useful

Quote:
And there's no point wasting my time talking with you about them, or indeed anything. You're lost in your own ego & bs.

You don't see any point into talking to people who don't share you bizarre confidence in your own judgement. See above.


I don't see any point talking with a wally that doesn't know what he doesn't know. As for what I do or don't know I don't plan to end the policy of putting very little personal info online, so you'll never know either way. And no, you don't. And if you're even vaguely suggesting I might be a psychopath, good god you're one lost fool. Not that that would be news to anyone on here.

In fact, enough time wasted already. Back to the personality problem filter you go.


NT

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:11:07 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

Quote:
On 02/08/2019 11:27 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:43 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:43, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.

Very few artists get rich unless some random oligarch takes a real fancy
to their output. Comparatively few make a decent living. Some who are
now very famous names scraped along barely surviving from day to day.

And millions of people still buy Superball lottery tickets.



A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he dreams about owning
a boat, because out there, beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

And it has a CD player


Does anybody still want a Cadillac?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Winfield Hill
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:45 pm   



bitrex wrote...
Quote:

A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he
dreams about owning a boat, because out there,
beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him


When I was young I was fascinated by sailboats,
especially large ones, the grand feeling of mass
and momentum on the waves. I took lessons, got
to spend a few days sailing a friend's 50-foot
Hinckley (and repairing it), etc. But now that
I could afford one, I've lost interest.


--
Thanks,
- Win

Clifford Heath
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:45 pm   



On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 9:01 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:29:06 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 12:56 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.

I just wish it were effective in practice. The world would be a better place.

I'm glad I wasn't born a century ago.

I get to live twice as long, and ten times as well.

That seems pretty effective to me.

Clifford Heath.

It's an advance for sure. Due to a mixture of things: medical research, finanial development, the time to put various improvments in place, developments in car design, all sorts of things. Obviously medical research has brought positive results, but it's been a very miss & sometimes hit path. Now that we can do better, we need to.

You misinterpret. All the other things became possible because *people
live longer* because medicine and basic hygiene stopped them dying young.

When everyone died at 50-60, we didn't take the time to even get
properly educated - not if we wanted to see our grand-children. So we
certainly couldn't do the other things too.

Clifford Heath.

Obviously there are a bunch of factors, of which living longer is one.


Perhaps we could agree that there was a number of successive
bottlenecks. The stopper that was pulled on the first and biggest was
health and longevity. That drastically accelerated progress in other
areas, leading to...

More efficient practices is another leading to shorter working weeks.
Hard to advance much when almost 100% of the population is working
excessive hours in fields growing crops. How you can get 'you
misinterpret' from that I don't know.
>

Clifford Heath.

Clifford Heath
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:45 pm   



On 9/2/19 4:54 am, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 08/02/2019 16:27, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:43 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:43, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a
second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and
inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.

Very few artists get rich unless some random oligarch takes a real fancy
to their output. Comparatively few make a decent living. Some who are
now very famous names scraped along barely surviving from day to day.

And millions of people still buy Superball lottery tickets.

National lotteries are a voluntary tax on the innumerate.


They buy a dream, and they get what they paid for. The ticket is just a
receipt.

Clifford Heath
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:45 pm   



On 9/2/19 7:50 am, Winfield Hill wrote:
Quote:
bitrex wrote...

A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he
dreams about owning a boat, because out there,
beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

When I was young I was fascinated by sailboats,
especially large ones, the grand feeling of mass
and momentum on the waves. I took lessons, got
to spend a few days sailing a friend's 50-foot
Hinckley (and repairing it), etc. But now that
I could afford one, I've lost interest.


It used to be said "fools build houses for wise folk to live in".

You could say "fools buy boats for wise folk to crew in".

It's also been said that the 2nd greatest day in a man's life is when he
buys a boat. The greatest is when he sells it.

My father used to say that about swimming pools, too.

Clifford Heath.

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 08:23:14 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam_at_please.net>
wrote:

Quote:
On 9/2/19 7:50 am, Winfield Hill wrote:
bitrex wrote...

A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he
dreams about owning a boat, because out there,
beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

When I was young I was fascinated by sailboats,
especially large ones, the grand feeling of mass
and momentum on the waves. I took lessons, got
to spend a few days sailing a friend's 50-foot
Hinckley (and repairing it), etc. But now that
I could afford one, I've lost interest.

It used to be said "fools build houses for wise folk to live in".

You could say "fools buy boats for wise folk to crew in".

It's also been said that the 2nd greatest day in a man's life is when he
buys a boat. The greatest is when he sells it.

My father used to say that about swimming pools, too.

Clifford Heath.


We, sadly, eventually give up sailboats and motorcycles and certain
classes of people.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

bitrex
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:45 pm   



On 02/08/2019 04:23 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quote:
On 9/2/19 7:50 am, Winfield Hill wrote:
bitrex wrote...

A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he
dreams about owning a boat, because out there,
beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

  When I was young I was fascinated by sailboats,
  especially large ones, the grand feeling of mass
  and momentum on the waves.  I took lessons, got
  to spend a few days sailing a friend's 50-foot
  Hinckley (and repairing it), etc.  But now that
  I could afford one, I've lost interest.

It used to be said "fools build houses for wise folk to live in".

You could say "fools buy boats for wise folk to crew in".

It's also been said that the 2nd greatest day in a man's life is when he
buys a boat. The greatest is when he sells it.

My father used to say that about swimming pools, too.

Clifford Heath.


Crockett from Miami Vice lived on a boat IIRC he seemed to do okay!


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 6:33:47 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 12:46:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/02/2019 05:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam_at_please.net> wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the
peer reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it
wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of,
99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something
percent.

It doesn't agree with your prejudices - that is entirely different.

whoosh


NT wants to be seen as knowing what he is talking about. He gets hurt and spiteful when people don't take him seriously, which is one more reason why one shouldn't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 6:46:51 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 14:00:19 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 9:49:57 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 11:33:57 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 8:58:14 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:28:19 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:21:33 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:


<snip>

Quote:
It patients can opt out at random it shrinks the pool of subjects, and could bias it in unpredictable ways

a percentage opting out is not a problem

Anything that biases the sampling is a problem.

No, a move that increases the sample pool from dozens to 10s or 100s of thousands is not a problem.


A move that selectively moves people out of the sample pool is a real problem. If you don't know who has moved themselves out of the sample or why, you run into the same kind of problem that the medical profession ended up with when it turned out that most of their drugs and treatments were only tested on male subjects. Females seem to be more risk-averse.

<snip>

Quote:
I've already cited Diederik_Stapel. The US is bigger than the Netherlands and a few more rogues are to be expected. It isn't exactly proof that everything that is published is fraudulent or even "false".

there's a whole lot more on those pages than Mr. Stapel.

A few rogues isn't a "whole lot" more.

It's not a few rogues. The articles there show a spread of ways research results can be bent. And given what a poor level of reproduciblity we get in medical research results... even you should be able to figure out that a lot of research is at best valueless.


The article does list a few ways that researchers can deceive themselves about the significance of their results.

The observation that "we looked at x and didn't get a big effect" isn't valueless - even if it takes up space in the literature that might otherwise have been occupied by a more informative result, if somebody had managed to come up with one.

<snip>

Quote:
None of which NT will be able to identify.

I identified some in my first undergraduate research project. It became apparent that I could choose to interpret the data either way I wanted, by emphasising different factors & choosing to eliminate differing data due to some non-obvious issues I could choose to either notice or not notice.

Then you weren't doing anything remotely useful. A properly constructed experiment doesn't give you any room to "emphasise different factors". You observe what happens and report it, and you don't get to choose to eliminate inconvenient data.

I see you don't know what I was doing. What's new.


You didn't tell us what you were doing, which is sadly typical.

> I didn't choose to eliminate inconvenient data, I saw how easy & plausibly deniable it was. Keep up.

You saw that you could cheat. You don't seem to have seen why you shouldn't..

Quote:
Clearly, you had decided that you could get away with cheating, and didn't realise that this made the exercise a complete waste of time.

whoosh. The whole point I'm making is that it makes it a waste of time.


That's how it struck you, Your perceptions are defective - which is why I feel obliged to call you a gullible twit from time to time.

Quote:
None of the articles I've flagged even touch that stuff.

You might try reading up on psychopathic personality disorders. These are the people who cheat all the time and assume everybody else does too.

not very useful


They are distinctly unhelpful.

Quote:
And there's no point wasting my time talking with you about them, or indeed anything. You're lost in your own ego & bs.

You don't see any point into talking to people who don't share you bizarre confidence in your own judgement. See above.

I don't see any point talking with a wally that doesn't know what he doesn't know.


You mostly don't tell us what you think you are well-informed about in the kind of detail that allows us to demonstrate that you aren't that well-informed.

You slipped up when you expressed an enthusiasm for amygdalin, and again when you told us that global warming stopped in 1998, both of which are singularly ill-informed opinions. The wally here is you.

> As for what I do or don't know I don't plan to end the policy of putting very little personal info online, so you'll never know either way.

Very wise. Unfortunately you've already posted enough to make it clear that you are a gullible fool.

> And no, you don't. And if you're even vaguely suggesting I might be a psychopath, good god you're one lost fool. Not that that would be news to anyone on here.

That's what a psychopath would say.

> In fact, enough time wasted already. Back to the personality problem filter you go.

The personality problem you need to filter is your own. Good luck with that..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:13:51 AM UTC+11, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 9:01 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:29:06 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 12:56 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.

I just wish it were effective in practice. The world would be a better place.

I'm glad I wasn't born a century ago.

I get to live twice as long, and ten times as well.

That seems pretty effective to me.

Clifford Heath.

It's an advance for sure. Due to a mixture of things: medical research, finanial development, the time to put various improvments in place, developments in car design, all sorts of things. Obviously medical research has brought positive results, but it's been a very miss & sometimes hit path. Now that we can do better, we need to.

You misinterpret. All the other things became possible because *people
live longer* because medicine and basic hygiene stopped them dying young.

When everyone died at 50-60, we didn't take the time to even get
properly educated - not if we wanted to see our grand-children. So we
certainly couldn't do the other things too.

Clifford Heath.

Obviously there are a bunch of factors, of which living longer is one.

Perhaps we could agree that there was a number of successive
bottlenecks. The stopper that was pulled on the first and biggest was
health and longevity. That drastically accelerated progress in other
areas, leading to...


This is a matter of opinion. In the histories I've read, the Second Agricultural Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution

which doubled agricultural productivity in the UK from about 1700 to 1850 was the crucial first step. People got better fed and healthier, and could move off the land into industry without running the risk of starving to death if spring was late.

You could also afford to send kids to primary school, rather than using them to help produce barely enough food.

Quote:
More efficient practices is another leading to shorter working weeks.
Hard to advance much when almost 100% of the population is working
excessive hours in fields growing crops. How you can get 'you
misinterpret' from that I don't know.


You put getting healthier before getting better fed, when getting adequately fed the whole year around is a necessary precondition for getting healthier.

Almost all medieval skeletons have annual starvation rings on their teeth - you had to be way up the social ladder to get enough food in late winter to avoid them. They also tend to be stunted, which wouldn't have helped brain development either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

George Herold
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 3:40:11 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:11:07 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 11:27 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:43 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:43, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.

Very few artists get rich unless some random oligarch takes a real fancy
to their output. Comparatively few make a decent living. Some who are
now very famous names scraped along barely surviving from day to day.

And millions of people still buy Superball lottery tickets.



A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he dreams about owning
a boat, because out there, beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

And it has a CD player

Does anybody still want a Cadillac?

One of the old boats? Pink convertible with
top down and driving through sunshine with
wife/ squeeze on my arm? I'd do that. :^)

George H.
Quote:


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map