I purchased one for £24, 11 years ago, and still use it. Ironically from amazon (code B006GTOYDS) - can't find it in way back machine still have it in my purchase history. Before they started killing the competition. Miles better than the kindle to read in daylight and battery life still lasts weeks... cheap isn't always throwaway.

In contrast, i know people who have went through many kindles in this time and spent a small fortune on them.

> Miles better than the kindle to read in daylight

Are you comparing it to the Kindle ereaders or their tablets? Standard (non-tablet) Kindles such as the Paperwhite series are like you describe (though they cost more than $100 and come with all of the lockin issues).

I don't know enough about the different kindle versions to say;

Kudos to you, but most would not be wise enough to know the difference (between cheap and throwaway).

I don't think they would have a choice. In a scheme like this, publishers would lock it down so they can sell it to you again. Perhaps even only allow a particular book to be read.

How do you imagine that people would not notice if a product they use is good? Why would they consider it throwaway if it works well?

Because they could always buy a replacement for cheap. Sadly, our consumer goods prices do not correctly reflect environmental externalities, so in a way a higher price is better for the environment, even if the difference doesn't go in the right pocket.

Sadly, for a lot of people, a "friend" mockingly saying "that's crap" would suffice.

So if your training and double your water intake your basically lowering you IQ? (according to the Chinese studies) I wonder the method this uses.. has anyone looked at dementia rates in high fluoride areas.. Particularly in people with high water intake?

There is also a host of things we use water for from cooking to preserving, distilling and cooling.. i wonder if any of these things could concentrate the fluoride.

Also since fluoride has a lower boiling point any studies tracked what breathing in fluoride gas over long periods cause?

When you are released from prison, they can simple ask you to decrypt the data again, and if you refuse or can't, you have broken a law with another 2 years in prison (5 if they think you could have anything to do with 'terrorism').. Its theoretically an infinite prison sentence for forgetting your passwords.

I believe double-jeopardy laws wouldn't allow this, but I could be wrong.

Double jeopardy was abolished in England and Wales almost twenty years ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4406129.stm

There is a lot of hokum and bad statistics in the medical field. Doctors truly don't have a great idea what improves post op outcomes.

There are some bigger studies coming out that show that early weight bearing is non-inferior to traditional protocols that ask for many weeks of NWB though, and given the obvious qol benefits of walking earlier it seems to me the standard should be mobilise ASAP.

There really isn't good evidence for immobilisation. It seems to be a hold over particularly for surgical fixation, where there's no real fear of displacing things if it's been fixated properly.

Flubber? Sorry, I’ll see my way out.

>Projects that don't have deadlines imposed on them, even if they are self-imposed, will take a lot longer than they need to, and may suffer from feature creep and scope bloat.

Another way to say this is;

>Projects that don't have deadlines imposed on them, will take longer, and may benefit from feature advancements and leave you with increased scope with the finished product.

Using words like creep and bloat to describe what is effectively a better solution to a problem is short-sighted and can lead to a false saving, as jobs that are rushed generally need to be re-done at a later date.

1. Project that takes longer has higher chances not to be finished.

2. Feature creep is a thing and it’s a valid concern. In planning you don’t usually do a potential benefit analysis, you do risk analysis, because additional wins are nice to have, yet you are interested in project success more. So focusing on risk rather than benefits here too makes sense.

Isn't that just selection bias, as diets get westernized so does medical care and so we detect more diseases..

this is even counter to mainstream medical opinion

> ..individuals basically lose completely their ability to understand and produce language as a result of massive damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. ...

The right hemisphere almost certainly uses internal 'language' either consciously or unconsciously to define objects, actions, intent.. the fact that they passed these tests is evidence of that. The brain damage is simply stopping them expressing that 'language'. But the existence of language was expressed in the completion of the task..

correctly is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and the selection process in evolution is not random.

The actual problem is upstream of that at the abiogenesis stage.

For evolutionary selection to occur the machinery for selection must exist. Specifically information storage (DNA/RNA), replication(polymerases) and actioning (transcription) all are needed, and must continue to be able to exist for long enough to matter.

Without selection pressure and inheritance you're just left with requiring a big enough universe and enough time for randomness not to matter.

Not the selection itself is random,

but the existence of genetic variants to select from randomly arises due to random genetic mutations according to the theory

The critical difference is evolutionary only needs relatively short sequences to be randomly generated, and there’s many valid sequences.

Building a book by generating a single random text string is practically impossible, but if you lock in any given word that’s correct and retry that’ll quickly get something. You’ll have most 8 letter or shorter words correct after 1 trillion runs, and many 9 letter words. It wouldn’t be done, but someone could probably read and understand the work at that point.

Further it’s possible for a few even longer words to match at that point. People think it’s unlikely that specific sequences happened randomly, but what they ignore is all the potential sequences that didn’t occur.

The many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right?

> You’ll have most 6 letter or shorter words correct after 1 billion tries.

You think that's "quick" for dna which is made up of billions of 6-base-sequences and for a species that can only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best?

> many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right?

There’s finite invalid sequences, DNA isn’t infinitely long. It’s also not a question of valid or invalid we live with sub optimal DNA, so yea most people aren’t born with some new beneficial mutation. However, not winning the lottery isn’t the same things a dying, and even smaller wins still benefit us.

As to our long reproductive cycle, there’s a reason we share so much in common with other primates. Most of our DNA has been worked out for a long time. We share 98% of our DNA with pigs, and 85% of it is identical in mice which has practical application in drug development. Of note common ancestors were more closely related to us because both branches diverged.

Hell 60% is shared with chickens, and half of it’s shared with trees.

> only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best?

Many sperm and fetuses die from harmful mutations, live babies are late in the process here. Also, because order doesn’t matter you get multiple chances to roll the same sequence for every birth.

PS: There’s also quite a bit of viral insertion into our DNA, it’s mostly sexual reproduction but we have some single cell ‘ancestors’ in our recent history.

> The many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right?

I dont know about the relative numbers but I don't think you do either? Are you begging the question or can you quantify?

> You think that's "quick" for dna which is made up of billions of 6-base-sequences and for a species that can only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best?

We didn't start from scratch, we are very very late in the game, and the groundwork for us was laid by millions of other species that can replicate quickly, often very quickly.

Unless you believe the Earth is only six thousand years or so old, in which case we might as well leave the discussion where it is.