Monthly Archives: September 2007
nice visual imagery of technological progress — although I think the 1GB SD card was available a few years ago (I’ve had a 2GB in my Palm for a year already). I’d also like to see what the 1GB/72-lb hard drive cost in 1987, vs the 1GB SD card in 2007; that might be even more dramatic.
(holy crap, was 1987 really 20 years ago? 1987 always seemed very pivotal for me; U2’s Joshua Tree, Ferris Bueller*, Black Monday…)
[via the Agitator]
except… it didn’t.
from the AP article (fourth paragraph):
U.S. life expectancy at birth inched up to 77.9 from the previous record, 77.8, recorded for 2004. The increase was more dramatic in contrast with 1995, when life expectancy was 75.8, and 1955, when it was 69.6.
I know I’m sweating the details here, but 77.9 is not 78! I mean, it’s just not. and it’s not like the writer can claim he was rounding the number up — rounding would make last years number (77.8) 78 as well.
I’m also not sure where he sees the ‘drama’ in the increase — 0.1 increase in one year could reasonably extrapolate to 1.0 increase in ten years, but his 1995-2005 numbers clearly show an increase of 2.1 over the past ten years — average of 0.2 per year, right? so if the increase was only 0.1 last year, the rate is actually slowing down!
run for the hills. “LIFE EXPECTANCY GAINS SLOWING!!!”
my other question from all this is: do these life expectancy numbers help ME? they always state “life expectancy at birth”, but how can they lock in your life expectancy when you’re born? when I was born, we didn’t have Plavix, Lipitor, Zocor (etc), and surely they could help contribute to extending my life, right? and the things that will be developed during baby J’s lifetime — deeper understanding of our biology and discovery of drugs, genetic treatments, nanotech, human/computer interaction — it boggles the mind.
for the record (and for better or for worse), I fully expect to live to see 120. and I expect baby J, born last year, will live to see the year 2200.