No Booze? You May Lose: Why Drinkers Earn More Money Than Nondrinkers

Bethany L. Peters and Edward Stringham

A number of theorists assume that drinking has harmful economic effects, but data show that drinking and earnings are positively correlated. We hypothesize that drinking leads to higher earnings by increasing social capital. If drinkers have larger social networks, their earnings should increase. Examining the General Social Survey, we find that self-reported drinkers earn 10-14 percent more than abstainers, which replicates results from other data sets. We then attempt to differentiate between social and nonsocial drinking by comparing the earnings of those who frequent bars at least once per month and those who do not. We find that males who frequent bars at least once per month earn an additional 7 percent on top of the 10 percent drinkers’ premium. These results suggest that social drinking leads to increased social capital.

Bibliographic data and PDF of the paper.

…with someone, who’s claiming that the earth is 6000 years old?

Well, that can be easy, but it also can be “a bit of a situation.”

Ah, English again.

The sample treatment has an effect on the lifetime.
But: The sample treatment affects the lifetime.

Paul Brians summarizes the four different meanings of the two verbs and the two nouns (per spelling!) affect/effect on his web site Common Errors in English.

The English pronunciation never ceases to amaze. The following observation is attributed to George Bernard Shaw; however, I have no idea if truthfully so.

How would you pronounce the invented word “ghoti”?

Like “fish” maybe? No?
But think of the…

• gh in laugh
• o in women
• ti in nation

Research is presented which has not actually been done yet. Graphs are shown depicting correlations we don’t know exist yet, and whose existence should really not be postulated before-hand for fear of biasing the statistics. Unexpected results are presented which dramatically confirm the expected correlations that might exist on the presented graphs. Several prominent researchers are referred to by their first names proving the authors really know what they are doing. Papers supporting the presented research are discussed with lavish praise, while those disputing the work are not mentioned due to the severe time limitation. The presenting authors will get so caught up in what is being said that they may actually start to believe in it, and also believe that the audience’s interest demands that the talk run longer than the appointed time limit. Audience members will then clap regardless of whether or not they understood the talk, or could pronounce its title. The researchers will then add a citation of the talk to their resumes and reflect on the increased possibility of having their grant applications accepted.

[Copyright 1987 by Robert J. Nemiroff]

Taken some weeks ago from Robert J. Nemiroff’s Comedy of Science webpage (which is – most unfortunately – not longer available online).

I always liked the game “The Incredible Machine“, so maybe I just have soft spot for stuff like this, but… I’d say: watch and be amazed!

Not that this isn’t well–known, but I want a reminder in my own weblog…

In order to add an “Open with Notepad” (or the editor/whatever of your choice) context menu entry under Windows98/2000 for all file types, you’ve got to modify the registry like this:

• In the registry key “HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\” find the key “shell” or create it if it’s not there yet.
• In “shell” create a new key and call it “openwnotepad” or alike. Change its “Default”-string’s value to “Open with Notepad”. This text will be your context menu text.
• In “openwnotepad” create a new key, which you have to call “command”. Change its “Default”-string’s value to “notepad.exe %1”. Instead of notepad.exe you can point to the editor of your choice.

Warning and disclaimer: Meddling with the windows registry can cause a serious mess-up of your system. Doing so and/or using the information provided here is done at your own risk entirely. Don’t blame me.

“Unwanted adds”? MSN obviously knows what it’s talking about:

(Screenshot from the IMDb, red marking by me.)

HotBits offers true random numbers via the web. The numbers are generated based on the measurement of the time between radioactive decay events of a 85Kr-sample (Krypton-85 exhibits beta decay to Rubidium-85). The random bytes are available in various formats and they are genuinely random, due to the inherent quantum mechanical uncertainty of the radioactive decay.

[update May 19th, 2006: Spelling corrected]

1 part Kalua

1 part Baileys

2 parts Vodka

Pour each directly into a shot glass, letting the ingredients mix as you add them.

(Recipe by Torsten Finnberg and Arne.)