Ever want to be frightened and are bored of horror stuff ?

Bregalad · Post by **Bregalad** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:50 pm

So take a look at statistics : http://www.worldometers.info/

Zepper · Post by **Zepper** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:00 pm

- Quite interesting. How accurate is it? ^_^;;

peppers · Post by **peppers** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:49 pm

not very from the looks of it

tokumaru · Post by **tokumaru** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:03 pm

Well, the rates at which the numbers change are probably based on accurate statistics. I'd guess it's accurate enough, the updating numbers just make it more dramatic.

naI · Post by **naI** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:01 pm

If it were accurate, I fear the figure for military spending would dwarf everything else...

peppers · Post by **peppers** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:39 pm

You really think a new person is becoming overweight every second, that's not how getting fat works. There are others to are obliviously incorrect just making a point.

Post by **tepples** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:45 pm

Definitions of "overweight" based on body mass index are nothing to be worried about. BMI can't tell the difference between muscle and fat. So if you have more muscle than the average fellow, you're overweight but not overfat.

Bregalad · Post by **Bregalad** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:24 am

Well, the rates at which the numbers change are probably based on accurate statistics. I'd guess it's accurate enough, the updating numbers just make it more dramatic.

Exactly. This is probably not accurate in itself, but based on accurate statistics to change the number in real times using linear approximation, so, unfortunately, it should not be that wrong.
Yes the updating numbers are frightening, especially the amount of people that are hungry and don't have acess to water. 3 times more births than deaths can't be a good thing either (not that I don't like children but I'm speaking for natural resources).
When I see the number of people that don't have acess to safe drinking water increase I immagine the guy oppening up the faucet and nothing comes out... probably not accurate but still terrible.

tepples wrote:Definitions of "overweight" based on body mass index are nothing to be worried about. BMI can't tell the difference between muscle and fat. So if you have more muscle than the average fellow, you're overweight but not overfat.

True, and I'm pretty sure I have much less muscles than the average fellow

Rid · Post by **Rid** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:53 am

3 times more births than death is really a problem. I think this is the most frightening stat of all the page.
I indeed think that many of other "bad" stats would be rapidly corrected if there was less births...

Bregalad · Post by **Bregalad** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:15 am

I agree. They should really distribute huge qutities of condoms in poorer countries, among with other things.

Now let's see what great catastrophe awaits us in 2012 :p

tokumaru · Post by **tokumaru** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:35 am

Bregalad wrote:They should really distribute huge qutities of condoms in poorer countries, among with other things.

It wouldn't work. Here in Brazil for example the government does (or used to do, I'm not really following) this really stupid thing where they give a certain amount of money per child to poor families, and another amount for each child in school.

This is supposed to help poor families and improve education, but guess what happens? People have more kids on purpose to get more money! And I doubt those kids are raised well with parents like that.

Bregalad · Post by **Bregalad** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:20 am

I think they should prevent people to have more than 2 children, and more than 1 in really surpopulated areas, until world population goes lower than 2-3 bilion. If they did that to my parents, I wouldn't be born and wouldn' thave to suffer the pain of life.

cpow · Post by **cpow** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:03 pm

Bregalad wrote:I think they should prevent people to have more than 2 children, and more than 1 in really surpopulated areas, until world population goes lower than 2-3 bilion. If they did that to my parents, I wouldn't be born and wouldn' thave to suffer the pain of life.

Life is very painful, yes. I subscribe to the theory that nobody should do more reproductively than replace themselves [or less]. So far, so good. After all, I have two kids and can't imagine being able to handle more. Then I go to work and there are people with 8 - 11 kids!

I found the "end of oil" and "end of gas" numbers most troublesome. That, and the fact that oil and food are "linked" -- but how valid is that link if it is just two graphs that appear to have the same profile over time? In 42+some years will planes fly?

tokumaru · Post by **tokumaru** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:17 pm

NESICIDE wrote:I found the "end of oil" and "end of gas" numbers most troublesome.

We can live without oil and gas just fine. I'd worry about water and air pollution.

Jeroen · Post by **Jeroen** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:27 pm

^^yeah cause we definitly don't need plastics and have plenty of other fuel sources.