The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I was on BestBuy's web site looking at their desktop offerings. Seeing what I thought was an error on a particular page, I decided to ask a chat agent about it. That conversation went like...
Me: I've a question about item 6203016.
BB: I'll be happy to answer you all your questions.
Me: On the Specs page, under the Memory section, it shows that 7 memory sticks are included.
BB: Yes, It is included with the tower of this computer.
Me: But there are only 2 memory slots, and 1 of them already has an 8GB memory stick in it. Why would 6 (or 7) extra sticks be included and NOT be part of the overall capacity? Why not just put one in the other memory slot and call it good?
BB: It is because it can be expandable up to 16 GB memory. In case you can expand the memory in the future.
Me: I understand that, but that's not what I'm questioning. Why does the web page show that 7 memory sticks are included?
BB: It shows because it'll be there with the tower and if you want you can upgrade the memory in the near future.
Me: That makes no sense whatsoever. Since there are only 2 memory slots in the system, why would the web page show that 7 memory sticks are included?
BB: It might be a technical glitch in the web page, we'll be looking in to it surely.
On occasion I do get chat agents that actually know about their wares. This was not one of those times.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
that's why I (often) put a stroke thru the middle of the 7
I have done / do it always. I can vary on doing it all at once or in two lines but always with the line in the middle.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
To date, very roughly 30 million people have been vaccinated in the US. Coincidentally the number of people (not vaccinated) that got the virus, is also approaching 30 million. Let's look at the effects on both groups: Of those vaccinated I have not seen any reports of deaths directly attributed to the vaccine. Of those who became infected, the number of deaths is approaching half a million!
How do you like them odds, partner?
We are very appreciative of the people who made the vaccine possible for us!
Of those vaccinated I have not seen any reports of deaths directly attributed to the vaccine. Of those who became infected, the number of deaths is approaching half a million!
Although I have my and the Mrs' vaccinations scheduled, I have to disagree with your use of the data. They really aren't measuring the same thing.
One is testing to see if, in a pool of 30M there are any deaths from becoming a member of a certain pool. The other, should be related to a pool of all persons who have not been vaccinated and the lethality of that state.
I agree with the point you are making but the proper comparison is roughly an order of magnitude less horrific than you claim. Restated: mortality of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
I wish our shots were in March instead of April, so you know where I stand on this.
Yeah - a rapid read and your post makes a strong point. I just can't help myself thinking about things the way I do: claims on TV/Radio all but put me in agony (and I can't shout back at them in any meaningful manner).
Indeed, we hope to get Phizer or Moderna vaccines because they really work well in preventing the disease, altogether. IF the claims for J&J's less effective vaccine are true in that those who get COVID after their vaccine is administered have very light symptoms, if any at all. I'm a full-blown skeptic . . . Oxford recently gave a big push to the efficacy of the AstraZenica vaccine (which has some possibly serious drawbacks with the elderly, like hardly working at all) - but I also recall it's based on Oxford's own research: did someone say "conflict of interest?".
So, responding to your post as I did - it's a compulsive thing
My idea has always been to not die or be hospitalized and to avoid the long-term effects that are apparently more common than than was originally thought.
which has some possibly serious drawbacks with the elderly, like hardly working at all
Hmm. This is actually a lie spread by the EU. The issue is that in the original testing, there were very few over-65s involved in the tests. The difference in mortality between the control group and the vaccinated is therefore a small number, and the number of those in the group who got C19 is small - possibly because, being over-65, they were less exposed to the virus (by design or by lifestyle). There is therefore not much data on the efficacy in over-65s, so its efficacy cannot be reported with a high degree of statistical confidence. However there is NO evidence that the efficacy is any less. That type of vaccine for other viruses has no "diminishing returns" with age and there's zero reason to expect it to be any different with the Covid vaccine.
What I find hilarious is the way the EU screamed the house down when their tardy ordering of vaccines left them short, and they risked a major international incident by trying to impose a hard border in Ireland, and in the EU (not a national government) conducting a raid on a private company. Having now accepted they're behind the curve in getting the AZ vaccine, they're now working hard spreading rumours that it's ineffective anyway. Absolutely pathetic at every step.
The latest data I read (via MedScape) puts J&J at about 66%; and in South Africa, more like 50%. So far as that goes, then, if my wife and I both get J&J then it's more-than-likely that one of us is unacceptable (not even including the S. Africa, strains).
Susceptibility is the wrong parameter. What counts is what are your chances, after being vaccinated, that you will get seriously ill from COVID? That's the real story if you really think about it.
So far, the only reliable mass-data in a real environment is Israel. Heavily leaning towards the most susceptible (such as 65 & over), they've been using Phizer and Moderna. Both seemed to do what I'm looking for at barely below 100% efficacy.
As for the J&J, and AstraZeneca - I wish both of them good luck as that's like wishing us all good luck and is a sensible hope. On the other hand, I see motivations for a little fudging of statistics to restore confidence in their yet-to-be-authorized (in US) vaccines. Switzerland is withholding authorization for A-Z .
Meanwhile, at the time I'm writing this, France and Germany[^] are saying no A-Z for seniors. Considering how desperate the EU seems to be to get the stuff, it seems like there's something compelling about their decisions.
NY is way behind in vaccinations. My doctor's office contacted me with this delay, so it is fact, not fiction.
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today updated New Yorkers on the state's vaccination program. As of 11AM today, New York's health care distribution sites have received 1,554,450 first doses and already administered 95 percent or 1,475,122 first dose vaccinations and 81 percent of first and second doses. Delivery of the week 8 allocation from the federal government is in the process of being delivered to providers for administration.
and so it would seem that NYS is about as caught up as it can be. I'd look for non-equitable distribution of vaccine. Was it fairly distributed on a per-capita basis or did some states (politically favored by the then current administration) get extra (thus shorting others)?
My (our) appointment is through a NY State site - from when I made it until it happens was roughly three months. Are you relying upon your personal physician to get the vaccine? If so, that could be the problem.
so your math/citing's does not cover half the population for NY.
You misinterpreted what I put completely. My citation of the state's progress is that they've distributed just about all the available vaccine they could. The state isn't failing - the vaccine supply (which was misrepresented by previous administration) is what is failing. You can't use what you don't have.
As for some getting second whilst others can't get the first? The second shot is pre-alloocated for the purpose after the frost is given. It has to be. The second shot is to be given 3 wks (4 wks for Moderna) after the first. That's what's been studied/authorized. To delay it so that more people can get their first shot would be asinine to a high degree. It is not know if a delay would weaken the effect - possibly, if delay is long enough, useless (start again?). So why risk wasting what you have available to satisfy the "me me me" of those who've not yet been vaccinated? To win their damn votes? Remember, too, that in all likelihood, those who get properly vaccinated (both doses) are also protecting us who are still waiting by reducing the number of carriers.
There's a problem with you having to wait but its a supply side problem more than anything else
I find it funny that people can get their second vaccination, and most can't even get their first.
There was a talking head on TV yesterday, who was trying to make a case that the second shots should be delayed, so that all who want the vaccine should at least get their first shot. But he based his argument on fake facts: That the second shot works better the longer it is delayed. However, he could offer no proof of this statement.
Depends on who you are trying to convince. The majority of people want to be vaccinated but can’t due to supply limitations etc.
The people who don’t want vaccinations are not the type of people who use logic, statistics appropriately or even use facts for their decision making.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.