Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:The facts are irrelevant! (Score 1) 398

Bad statistics is bad statistics. Suck it up or get the statistics right. I don't care what side is spinning what. I am always going to call deliberately misleading statistics out. Yea when its deliberate, is because their is an axe to grind. Regardless if that axe "drugs are awesome" or "beer is evil" or "all hurricanes are SUVs fault". It is done far too often in the scientific community by people that should know better.

Yea its old but i have been sick.

Comment: Re:disclosure (Score 1) 448

by delt0r (#49118465) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests
I personally know some people who contribute to the IPCC, I know many more that will never do that again. IPCC is a very very politicized report that is written and rewritten many times, by more senior people down the line. It has a lot less to do with science that it does with politics.

Comment: Re:disclosure (Score 1) 448

by delt0r (#49118407) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests
Clearly you don't know many scientists. Scientists, and by association the science they do, has no more integrity than anything else done by people. There are many examples, of bad reviews to people they don;t like, to flat out make shit up. Then there is grant review pannels and well the list keeps on going. Oh and in the US about 1/4 of or salary is suppose to be made up in grants in many universities.

Comment: Re:Not what it sounds like (Score 1) 398

Alcohol is more dangerous as it is easy to consume enough to kill you. Pot is not.

Perhaps. In my experience its a even split of people going to the hospital. Also i know of almost no one that smokes only pot, they are also typically drunk as well.

Alcohol is more dangerous because it causes you to do stupider stuff then stoners typically do.

Citation required. At least everywhere i have been where there are plenty of stoners, they do just as crazy shit as everyone else. I could cite the police reports to prove it.

Alcohol is more dangerous as it harms children more then pot.

You literary just made that up.

Alcohol is more dangerous to your health over the long term. Smoke pot, your liver will thank me.

Again with the made up shit.

Lets be clear we know alcohol can be bad for you. But we just don't have good data on pot. Mostly because it has been illegal. There is nothing to suggest that if was as widely used as alcohol and as widely abused that it would be any better.

This is what i hate about the drugs debate. The pro side is "totally harmless" the con side is "OMG your going to eat your friend when high one day". The truth is neither, and the best we can say from the data right now is that pot is *mostly* harmless for limited use depending on the person (if there is a history of metal issues in your family you may want to be a little more careful). And this study is another example of the bullshit that can come out with the science label slapped on it.

Comment: Re:The facts are irrelevant! (Score 1) 398

Err no. Look at the data. It does not tell the story that the headline portrays. If i pick a random person in society, what is it that is currently bad for them? If i do X what is my increased mortality rate? That is the difference. It is like the last study post on /. here. Some very awful statistics there, and a clear axe to grind.

The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.

Working...