Seriously? You're going to go with the "if it's not Brietbart it's fake news" angle? The whole incident was described on a Trump supporter's / Mar-a-Lago member's facebook page, and in a bunch of other sources. Even Sean Spicer didn't try to deny it.
Getting back from your attempt to change the subject, keep in mind that Mar-a-Lago is just a piece of evidence in a longer chain. Trump has spent an entire campaign bragging about breaking rules - there's no reason to believe he'd start following rules about when he can have his phone if he didn't want to.
But if they are whoever tasked at keeping the situation secure should be fired. Nobody was fired after this: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The president gets to make the rules - everyone else just gets to make suggestions. So if Trump wants to overrule someone who tells him to not bring his android phone into a SCIF, he can. And the Mar-a-Lago example indicates that he might be willing to do exactly that.
And within 30 seconds of reading your post, I came up with the idea of storing recordings on a phone, and then forwarding them later when the signal isn't blocked.
Except that I didn't actually come up with that idea, it's how many real world apps work (and how much eavesdropping malware works).
Interesting info - thanks! I didn't know there was another section sometimes referred to as the 'emoluments clause'.
My quick bit of searching indicates that there's some disagreement over which of the (three!) sections of the constitution that mention 'emoluments' get that as their informal title. At the moment, Wikipedia links emoluments to Article I, section 9, but there's some arguing about that choice on the various talk pages.
Specificity will be a useful thing as this discussion proceeds; I suspect we'll be talking about how to interpret 'Consent of Congress' before too long.
Neither of your citations appear to even mention the 'emoluments clause' of the Constitution, which makes them, at best, incomplete ('worthless' is also a possible description).
Try looking for something newer - there was very little reporting on the emoluments clause until after the election.
But you have never actually presented scientific evidence My phrasing was deliberate - you are hand-waving away the vast amount of evidence that's out there, not just what I'm presenting. I'm pretty sure you know how to use Google too, and don't need to rely on me to lead you to it.
This isn't even new stuff - I'm mainly working off the memory of a deep dive I did into this topic about ten years ago; not much has changed since then.
And now we've come full circle. Let me see if I can recap this conversation.
anon: There's no data me: here's data you: but not controlled studies me: here are controlled studies you: but not the right kind of controlled studies me: here's a report with descriptions and references to controlled studies about harms (surgeon general's report, I linked it above). you: I haven't seen a positive study(*1). And it's all political(*2).
(*1) Yet later you talk about the 'the very few that dare report any negative finding', implying you think that most have a positive finding.
(*2) You should look at the sources in that report - many come from places like Japan, Switzerland, China, and a number of other countries. I really doubt the political constraints that you think exist are going to apply everywhere on the planet.
If you're just going to hand-wave away the huge amount of evidence that's out there, then continuing this part of the conversation is kinda pointless. So, I'm going to move on to speculating about your motives and politics. Some possibilities on your agenda here: - You work for a tobacco firm in some capacity, and have let your paycheck skew your reasoning. - You have been exposing family and friends to second-hand smoke, and are trying to find a rationalization for your behavior. - You like arguing. - You like being the special guy who can see though the vast conspiracies in this world, and next you'll want to move on to discussing WTC7 and thermite.
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.
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.
... 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.
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?
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.
That's just silly and egregiously awful - I can't fathom why you are trying to quell the myriad changes we've seen in language.
(just in case you didn't know: many of the words in the above sentence, both sesquipedalian and otherwise, used to mean something completely different)
Ahh - good point. I spend my time worrying about authenticating users using web browsers, so I haven't used any of the zero-knowledge protocols. Maybe some day things like SRP will become commonly available in the web world, but I'm not holding my breath...
Slashdot Mirror
The head of the House Science Committee spends all of his time denying and attacking science. She'll fit right in:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
But just asking?
A subordinate.
By text.
On the first day of the job.
That's not 'just asking'.
Seriously? You're going to go with the "if it's not Brietbart it's fake news" angle? The whole incident was described on a Trump supporter's / Mar-a-Lago member's facebook page, and in a bunch of other sources. Even Sean Spicer didn't try to deny it.
Getting back from your attempt to change the subject, keep in mind that Mar-a-Lago is just a piece of evidence in a longer chain. Trump has spent an entire campaign bragging about breaking rules - there's no reason to believe he'd start following rules about when he can have his phone if he didn't want to.
But if they are whoever tasked at keeping the situation secure should be fired.
Nobody was fired after this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The president gets to make the rules - everyone else just gets to make suggestions. So if Trump wants to overrule someone who tells him to not bring his android phone into a SCIF, he can. And the Mar-a-Lago example indicates that he might be willing to do exactly that.
And within 30 seconds of reading your post, I came up with the idea of storing recordings on a phone, and then forwarding them later when the signal isn't blocked.
Except that I didn't actually come up with that idea, it's how many real world apps work (and how much eavesdropping malware works).
Interesting info - thanks! I didn't know there was another section sometimes referred to as the 'emoluments clause'.
My quick bit of searching indicates that there's some disagreement over which of the (three!) sections of the constitution that mention 'emoluments' get that as their informal title. At the moment, Wikipedia links emoluments to Article I, section 9, but there's some arguing about that choice on the various talk pages.
Specificity will be a useful thing as this discussion proceeds; I suspect we'll be talking about how to interpret 'Consent of Congress' before too long.
Neither of your citations appear to even mention the 'emoluments clause' of the Constitution, which makes them, at best, incomplete ('worthless' is also a possible description).
Try looking for something newer - there was very little reporting on the emoluments clause until after the election.
So what do we call all the black americans on Twitter, calling out to kill all white people?
a) Just as repulsive as Spencer.
b) If (and only if) they are advocating for a separate race-based nation, then you can call them black nationalists.
c) On Twitter? It's likely that you can call many of them Russian.
Also over-represented on TV: terrorists, cops, doctors, and lawyers. And zombies.
But you have never actually presented scientific evidence
My phrasing was deliberate - you are hand-waving away the vast amount of evidence that's out there, not just what I'm presenting. I'm pretty sure you know how to use Google too, and don't need to rely on me to lead you to it.
This isn't even new stuff - I'm mainly working off the memory of a deep dive I did into this topic about ten years ago; not much has changed since then.
Also, please see note (*1) above.
This link? Works for me:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...
I looked at the complete report
Try the PDF.
And now we've come full circle. Let me see if I can recap this conversation.
anon: There's no data
me: here's data
you: but not controlled studies
me: here are controlled studies
you: but not the right kind of controlled studies
me: here's a report with descriptions and references to controlled studies about harms (surgeon general's report, I linked it above).
you: I haven't seen a positive study(*1). And it's all political(*2).
(*1) Yet later you talk about the 'the very few that dare report any negative finding', implying you think that most have a positive finding.
(*2) You should look at the sources in that report - many come from places like Japan, Switzerland, China, and a number of other countries. I really doubt the political constraints that you think exist are going to apply everywhere on the planet.
If you're just going to hand-wave away the huge amount of evidence that's out there, then continuing this part of the conversation is kinda pointless. So, I'm going to move on to speculating about your motives and politics. Some possibilities on your agenda here:
- You work for a tobacco firm in some capacity, and have let your paycheck skew your reasoning.
- You have been exposing family and friends to second-hand smoke, and are trying to find a rationalization for your behavior.
- You like arguing.
- You like being the special guy who can see though the vast conspiracies in this world, and next you'll want to move on to discussing WTC7 and thermite.
Any other explanations you want to offer?
From Wikipedia: ... 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.
Ad hominem
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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?
Here you go, a whole bunch of citations on second-hand smoke, all in one spot and very easy-to-read:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...
From the abstract of one of the linked papers: No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists.
The GOP attempts to suppress illegal voting
Incorrect. The GOP isn't interested in going after illegal absentee voting, even though that's where most fraud occurs.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
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.
It is in the CDC's purview:
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/abo...
http://www.cdc.gov/about/organ...
http://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cd...
The CDC's scope is "health problems", not just disease: http://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cd...
That's just silly and egregiously awful - I can't fathom why you are trying to quell the myriad changes we've seen in language.
(just in case you didn't know: many of the words in the above sentence, both sesquipedalian and otherwise, used to mean something completely different)
Backing up semi trucks using computers already exists (and they're pretty good at it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ahh - good point. I spend my time worrying about authenticating users using web browsers, so I haven't used any of the zero-knowledge protocols. Maybe some day things like SRP will become commonly available in the web world, but I'm not holding my breath ...