Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Who cares? (Score 1) 177

From Wikipedia:
Ad hominem ... in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You could dispute whether your statement was a fallacious argument or not, but it was indeed an ad hominem attack.

I would note that it was a pointless argument, since it is unlikely any of the same individuals were involved (if the CDC was involved at all), and one issue of this nature does not point to 'a history of poor reasoning'. It just points to the fact that science is never finished.

BTW, the 'current advice' on second-hand smoke dates to at least 1986. There's been quite a bit of time for someone to find issue with the conclusions; I'm not aware of that happening in any legitimate context.

Comment Re: Who cares? (Score 1) 177

My apologies. I failed to interpret your note about the lack of 'an actual controlled study' as referring to 'an actual controlled study about X'.

If you really want to learn about the dangers of second-hand smoke, you could try reference #3 from the fact sheet, entitled 'The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke'. There you will find executive summaries and overviews of the report, as well as links to the complete report. You can even get everything in a convenient pdf format.

Technically, this publication is not 'an actual controlled study'; instead it is built on a large number of controlled studies. I would suggest that it meets any reasonable criteria for your controlled study requirement.

Comment Re: Who cares? (Score 1) 177

... estimated ...
And then they supplied a number of references and data to describe how they came to that estimate. It's a carefully chosen term; if they'd used something more absolute you'd be whining about that too. But it doesn't mean they just made a number up, despite your claim to the contrary.

... believed ...
I can't find the section you're referring to, but a report like that is going to include reports on the efficacy of consumer information campaigns. Its existence in the report is not proof they used this belief as data for the estimate, even though that's what you are implying.

What you should worry about are your paranoia and ignorance.
So you're not trying to have an adult conversation, are you.

imply with a lot of confidence that the risk below certain exposure is so insignificant that it is impossible to measure.
That's actually a legitimate point; if you weren't so busy being an ass, I might consider discussing it with you.

Comment Re: Who cares? (Score 1) 177

If there's a link to an actual controlled study anywhere in there, I can't find it.
What was wrong with the link I used in my comment? That study, which was reference #8 in the fact sheet, describes its methodology, shows its data, and has a couple dozen more references if you want to get further into it.

Brought to you by the same people who recommended transfat laden margarine for your health.
And? What does that ad hominem have to do with the work of a completely different group of scientists?
It's the way of science - when we learn more, we sometimes find that we made mistakes before. If you're only going to accept information from people who have never been wrong, you're not going to learn much.
PS - I can't find where the CDC itself recommended margarine. Have a link?

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1) 260

A big difference between fire code handling for public accommodations like hotels and the handling for private residences is the frequency of inspections. Hotels are inspected at regular intervals, like annually. Most homes are only inspected after they are built or after major renovations.

That gap leaves a lot of opportunity for someone to do something stupid, like letting the batteries in the smoke detectors die, blocking doors, making windows impossible to open, etc.

Comment Re:f!rstPo$t (Score 3, Insightful) 140

Are you positing that the client creates the hash from the user password?

That's not how it works. If the client generated the hash, then the hash would essentially become the password, and all of the benefits of hashing and salting would be lost.

There's a pretty good discussion here about why hashing occurs on the server:

Comment Re:I wish people would recognize... (Score 1) 396

The UCLA shooting triggered a massive police response, with hundreds of officers and thousands of people affected. By any objective measure, it was a significant story.

There are likely eleven murder-suicides every week that get about as much coverage as your drug story.

There are lots of issues in what gets traction and what doesn't in media coverage. But things are much more complicated than "they like drugs".

Comment Re:Programers can not even figures (Score 1) 372

My pet peeve: web sites that can't handle Gmail's '+' addresses, but don't actually flag it as an error. Instead, they go off into la-la land.

It's usually an indication that someone screwed up the quoting somewhere along the way (and obviously they missed a bit with their testing ,too).

Slashdot Top Deals

The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe.