Re: safety in numbers? Fail
- From: frag <news5@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:06:32 +0000 (UTC)
PipL <pluscher@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:57:48 +0000 (UTC), frag <news5@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It sucks, but it's life. And life, when viewed using these kinds of
figures, is cheap.
If one wanted to be /really/ cynical then one could probably draw an
age-related curve of how valuable a life is:
young child: futire potential but few resources spent so far on it.
Young but recently-qualified worker: high value.
Recent retiree: nonproductive, but some use from experience,
Old codger: Into the showers.
This depreciation sucks doesn't it?
I'd better trade myself in for a younger model.
- Prev by Date: Ah, there it is...
- Next by Date: Re: Event Data Recording
- Previous by thread: Re: safety in numbers? Fail
- Next by thread: Re: Note to self - Passports are not waterproof and rain is not the only source of water.