How about a set of eyes in the back of our head? Then again, maybe that's not such a good idea, considering those times when I'm waiting in line while having a thoughtless stranger breathing down my neck, obliviously breaching my personal space!
Just think what it'd be like if we had eyes in back of our head while in a crowded elevator!!!
I always thought an eyeball at the end of one (or more) fingers would be much handier (no pun intended). Think how easy it'd be to find stuff that rolls under the couch...
Of course, getting a football or volleyball or something jammed onto the end of your finger would bring a whole new meaning to the term "hurt".
I mean that your writing style changes, Boncuk, your opinions change. I look back on things I wrote years ago and feel like an idiot for writing them. I think most people do.
I always thought an eyeball at the end of one (or more) fingers would be much handier (no pun intended). Think how easy it'd be to find stuff that rolls under the couch...
Of course, getting a football or volleyball or something jammed onto the end of your finger would bring a whole new meaning to the term "hurt".
Extra eye balls on your finger tips ? Good one. I think I would like the x-ray method. Scan the room and boom there's the car key's. Infrared might be cool too!!
I mean that your writing style changes, Boncuk, your opinions change. I look back on things I wrote years ago and feel like an idiot for writing them. I think most people do.
Most importantly: If you HAVEN'T changed your opinion about anything in years, check your pulse - you may be dead!
Ask your wife speakerguy, if you're not married... Well.. Dunno where to go from there, but you're driving your own demons out, not the enemy or the lamentations of their wives. Bigger, louder, badder, better, or whatever.
It's not too loud if you're too old, it just start sounding like crap. Good audio, speaks to us all, on it's own.
Ah, those "life expectancy" stats are SO full of crap. All it really does is give you a vague indication of the infant mortality rate, and it isn't even good at that.
Ah, those "life expectancy" stats are SO full of crap. All it really does is give you a vague indication of the infant mortality rate, and it isn't even good at that.
In that case a lot of people's money is riding on a bad gamble.
For my high school class of 138 the tables predicted 6 (or 8, I forget) would be dead by the 20th reunion, and 8 (or 6) were.
There is supposed to be a built-in life span for living things; for people it is 85, with some few living to be 120.
I read some version of "Vitality and Aging: Implications of the Rectangular Curve" back in the 80s.
Living in dangerous places (or, for animals, living in the wild) makes the curve a bumpy line, rather than having "a knee." Lab animals have the knee in the curve; they have everything they want and they die anyway.
Keep chatting on these forums to keep your brain alive, exercise to keep your body alive and don't get fat to keep your heart working well and you will live for forever like I will.
Years ago I stopped smoking.
Today in a checkup my doctor said my weight is the same as 10 years ago.
My ECG and blood pressure are normal.
I was distracted by a new shapely young nurse.
But I am an old geezer!
No, those individual tables broken down like that (for people 25 and over, there is such-and-such probability thus-and-so many people will be dead by such-and-such a time) are accurate and give a good indication of the real situation.
This "average life expectancy" number is too sensitive to infant mortality. It's like taking a transistor that can handle 100V on the collector and .7V on the base and saying "the average voltage for this transistor is..."
So if I get your jist, your saying 10 people are born, 5 die at birth, the remaining live to between 50 and 80, but since the 5 infants died, the avg number is much lower, is that what you mean?