I was looking at the mobile version and was appreciating how minimal and efficient it was. But I didn't like the mobile green so much, so I made my own brighter pop-your-eyes-out green!

With Chromebot

Hee Hee

The title gave me an idea... and I missed the orange. And we had something similar like this before...

Et voilà!!! Tree-hugger (e:strip)!!

Get it here:

img.mini_userpic {
    border-style: none;
}

#stripe {
    display: none;
}

div.section.flip {
    display: none;
}

div.padding {
    display: none;
}

ol li a {
    display: none;
}

div.section h1 {
    font-variant: small-caps;
    font-size: 10px;
}

#col_left {
    display: none;
}

div.link_list {
    background-color: #8fad15;
    height: 0;
}

html body {
    background: url(http://cdn.tomorrow.do/Woodtable-merge.jpg)

;
    margin-left: 250px;
}

.buttons a {
    background-image: none;
    border: #eee;
}

#signup p {
    background-color: =;
}

#latest_entries ul li {
    font-size: 16px;
    line-height: 2.1em;
    letter-spacing: 1.6px;
}

#latest {
    background-color: #8eb320;
    padding-left: 30px;
    width: 350px;
    padding-right: 30px;
    moz-border-radius: 15px;
    -webkit-border-radius: 15px;
    border-radius: 15px;
    border-style: dotted;
    border-color: #6d8217;
    border-width: 1px;
}

div.mini_comment {
    letter-spacing: 1px;
    padding-bottom: 0;
    border-style: dotted;
    border-color: #6d8217;
    border-width: 1px;
    background-color: #8eb320;
    width: 350px;
    height: 120px;
}

div.mTopBottom {
    -moz-border-radius: 15px;
    -webkit-border-radius: 15px;
    border-radius: 15px;
    width: 400px;
    overflow: hidden;
}

div.link_list.buttons {
    margin-left: 729px;
    border-style: none
;
}

div.link_list.buttons a {
    border-style: none;
    color: #ffffff;
}

#comments {
    width: 400px;
    margin-left: 250px;
    margin-top: 20px;
}

div.section label {
    font-size: 15px;
    color: #ffffff;
}

#banner {
    width: 400px;
    height: 100px;
    margin-left: 250px;
    margin-top: -500px;
}

div.frontleft {
    margin-top: -30px;
}

div.body {
    color: #ffffff;
}

.module a {
    color: #8eb700
;
}

#comments p {
    
#comments p {
    margin-left: -250px;
    width: 300px;
}

Cute... and so alien.

I don't read the regular news too often. My narrow tracking feeds pretty much target and scrape what I want from the news (mostly research, linux, android and grocery news). When I do hit the google news page once in a bluemoon, I am always trying to catch up on the last n-months worth of craziness. I often stop when I reach around 1 hour worth of news (around 3 articles). And then I don't read for the next n-months before the cycle repeats.

The blue moon rose today and I happened to glance at the top headline. A lottery. Seriously, a lottery of 640 bazillion dollars. That is top national and international news. Specifically, all the different ways you could spend the 640 bazillions that you have a whole 1:zillion odds of winning.

I say, this is an exemplary example of the human spirit and hope. Imagine buying a $1 ticket and hoping you can beat the 1:zillion odds. Fascinating. Maybe I should get a ticket too and join everyone else. The thing is does anyone know where I can get one within a 1/2 mile radius. Does Walgreens sell lottery tickets?

---

Ooh, (e:Paul) just told me - the nearest gas station. Hmm.. need to go on Google maps to find the nearest one. Maybe this is a hint that the tickets are not really targeting my demographic if I am having so much trouble just figuring out how to get them. Nevermind the question of what I will do with the money.

Ugly but true.

In a study published last month, researchers who asked cancer survivors about their health behaviour found that survivors indulged in poorer/riskier behaviours than people who have never been diagnosed with cancer:

From:

A total of 18,510 had detailed history on health behaviors and previous cancer history. Overall 2713 (14.7%) reported a previous cancer history. We found statistically significant results indicating that cancer survivors were less likely than those with no cancer history to:
report their overall health as “excellent” (13.6% vs. 21.5%), ...

Was that a trick question?! You said you have had a diagnoses of cancer. Would you say your overall health is "excellent"?

to engage in moderate or strenuous exercise (56.5% vs. 63.3%), and to use complementary and alternative medicine (57.4% vs. 60.2%).

Wonder whether the analyses stratified people with a recent vs. distant diagnoses of cancer... need to look at the tables. Maybe the survivors were physically unable to exercise so much or maybe were on standard medication that could have had interactions with random alternative medicines had they chosen to take them. Maybe they were advised not to take OTC medicine.

Conversely, cancer survivors were more likely to be current smokers (6.3% vs. 5.5%), rate their overall health as “poor” (15.8% vs. 9.1%), and to report more weight gain over time. Among cancer survivors, differences also emerged by the type of primary cancer. For example, cervical cancer survivors (n = 370) were most likely to report being current smokers (15.7%) and regular alcohol users (71.7%) compared with other survivors. Ovarian (n = 185) and uterine (n = 262) cancer survivors most frequently reported being obese (41% and 34.4%, respectively). Cervical cancer survivors reported the largest weight gain (4.9 lbs at 5 y and 13.4 lbs at 10 y).

The study totally begs these questions:

• Do people who are diagnosed with cancer always have poorer behaviours to start with?
• Do cancer survivors indulge in poorer behaviours because they are fatalist?
• Or do they just feel like they have poorer behaviours just because they got diagnosed with cancer and answer in that vein on the administered questionnaires ie. a kind of survivor bias?
• Or did they feel obliged to assign blame for their diagnoses on past and present behaviours?
• Or maybe the non-cancer survivors in this study didn't really feel the need to spill on their current health behaviours in so much detail as the survivors?

Who knows.

Do you remember what you ate last Monday through Friday - in detail, morning, afternoon, evening? Do you remember how you generally ate in the past decade? If you are not tracking your periods for some specific reason (or maybe have an android period-tracking application to record days and symptoms for fun), how accurately do you remember the date your last period ended? Do you remember the brands and compositions of the hormone pills you took 20 years back?

Sometimes I wonder if our questionnaires are eliciting anything useful. Or if we should trust them so much. It would be nicer to have more objective ways of tracking health behaviours and milestones.