The legislative branch is the only one that can write and implement laws. If an Agency is empowered with the responsibility to enforce that law, then that same agency can operate differently under different administrations. Basically, a given Agency can't announce a regulation that binds that same Agency in the future. The same holds true with Executive actions: One President can't sign an executive action that forces future Presidents to follow it.
If there is debate over whether a given regulation by an agency falls within the scope of legislation, then the correct way to solve it is via further (and clearer) legislation.
This isn't a question over whether changes to light bulb policy is good or bad: It's about the split of powers between Congress the Executive branch.
From everything you read about nutritional research, it's important to remember that unlike nearly all areas of science, they perform no actual rigorous research on this. Instead, it's meta-analysis of self-reported data that hunts and seeks patterns (instead of coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it).
In many cases, it's meta-analysis of meta-analyses.
In none of the nutritional research studies presented do they create control groups where they accurately measure and monitor all food consumed and report it over a lifetime. It's just nearly impossible. So instead, any sort of nutritional results get completely caught up with household income, other food being eaten, genetic predisposition and just plain garbage data.
Perhaps people who eat 2+ eggs per day are having them via egg sandwiches with bacon, cheese and white bread while sipping coffee. The actual causes could be those other things (bacon, cheese, coffee) rather than the eggs themselves.
It seems to me that bringing in vast dollar amounts for collecting fossils should be a good thing for paleontology. More money should mean more resources to dig them up, increasing the overall supply of fossils available to humans to study.
Rich folks are incented to protect their new (expensive) investments. Rich folks might want to donate them to museums for display in exchange for having their name next to the display. Sufficiently rich folks might want to create their own research center for paleontologists to work in exchange for recognition and as a status symbol.
I'm just spitballing, but the above comments from paleontologists sound a bit like whining: If no one cared about dinosaurs, rich folks wouldn't collect them AND no one would care about paleontology.
One of the great ironies about the fake news crisis since the 2016 election has been the fact that there was no urgency to combat fake news prior to Trump. The most-viewed version of the Loose Change "documentary" about how the US government orchestrated and covered up 9/11 is now 6 years old and has 2.7 million views. Another version entitled "BEST 9/11 Documentary: If You Seek TRUTH, WATCH THIS" has 4.7 million views. I specifically remember how it was first located on Google Video prior to Google acquiring Youtube, and was online around 2005-2006.
It's interesting that fake news only becomes a crisis when it might impact the causes and politics that align with the political biases of those in the media and Facebook/Twitter/Google executives.
This has happened on Google Play and the Apple iTunes store. This seems more like a story of the lack of imagination on the part of Google/Apple/Facebook when it came to making purchases on a device where the user is a registered adult. As much as I hate Facebook, this isn't a unique problem to them. My guess is that right now, similar situations happen with the Nintendo Switch store, Xbox, PS4 and others.
The real fault lies in a combination of the parents not monitoring or securing their phones, and the original settings that allowed you to save a password for those stores and not require it upon each purchase.
Facebook is guilty of many many things, but this seems overhyped.
Your point is well-taken. In your case, the responsible thing to do then would be to notify the TSA and the authorities at the airport to your concerns. It would not be "research", however, to post the combination to that door on the Internet, or to reveal its location. This is analogous to what he did. It's one thing to point out flaws in order to help address them. It's another thing entirely to create tools and resources to help people exploit holes in the system.
Airport security is not tight, nor anywhere near a bulletproof system. But his actions in no way benefit or ameliorate this system; it only had the potential to cause more problems.
What is the actual value and goals of his research? A responsible researcher could have created a proof-of-concept, and raised awareness through media channels, research paper, blog etc. He should have also presented his research to the TSA and the airlines.
Instead what he did was not research. He created a website to create fake boarding passes and released it to the public. There was no academic benefit. If I created forged passport software and released it, that's not research.
Let's call this for what it is: trouble-making, not research.
Slashdot Mirror
The legislative branch is the only one that can write and implement laws. If an Agency is empowered with the responsibility to enforce that law, then that same agency can operate differently under different administrations. Basically, a given Agency can't announce a regulation that binds that same Agency in the future. The same holds true with Executive actions: One President can't sign an executive action that forces future Presidents to follow it.
If there is debate over whether a given regulation by an agency falls within the scope of legislation, then the correct way to solve it is via further (and clearer) legislation.
This isn't a question over whether changes to light bulb policy is good or bad: It's about the split of powers between Congress the Executive branch.
From everything you read about nutritional research, it's important to remember that unlike nearly all areas of science, they perform no actual rigorous research on this. Instead, it's meta-analysis of self-reported data that hunts and seeks patterns (instead of coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it).
In many cases, it's meta-analysis of meta-analyses.
In none of the nutritional research studies presented do they create control groups where they accurately measure and monitor all food consumed and report it over a lifetime. It's just nearly impossible. So instead, any sort of nutritional results get completely caught up with household income, other food being eaten, genetic predisposition and just plain garbage data.
Perhaps people who eat 2+ eggs per day are having them via egg sandwiches with bacon, cheese and white bread while sipping coffee. The actual causes could be those other things (bacon, cheese, coffee) rather than the eggs themselves.
Have you ever been to an art museum? Rich people donate paintings all of the time to be on display in exchange for having their name next to it.
It seems to me that bringing in vast dollar amounts for collecting fossils should be a good thing for paleontology. More money should mean more resources to dig them up, increasing the overall supply of fossils available to humans to study.
Rich folks are incented to protect their new (expensive) investments. Rich folks might want to donate them to museums for display in exchange for having their name next to the display. Sufficiently rich folks might want to create their own research center for paleontologists to work in exchange for recognition and as a status symbol.
I'm just spitballing, but the above comments from paleontologists sound a bit like whining: If no one cared about dinosaurs, rich folks wouldn't collect them AND no one would care about paleontology.
One of the great ironies about the fake news crisis since the 2016 election has been the fact that there was no urgency to combat fake news prior to Trump. The most-viewed version of the Loose Change "documentary" about how the US government orchestrated and covered up 9/11 is now 6 years old and has 2.7 million views. Another version entitled "BEST 9/11 Documentary: If You Seek TRUTH, WATCH THIS" has 4.7 million views. I specifically remember how it was first located on Google Video prior to Google acquiring Youtube, and was online around 2005-2006. It's interesting that fake news only becomes a crisis when it might impact the causes and politics that align with the political biases of those in the media and Facebook/Twitter/Google executives.
This has happened on Google Play and the Apple iTunes store. This seems more like a story of the lack of imagination on the part of Google/Apple/Facebook when it came to making purchases on a device where the user is a registered adult. As much as I hate Facebook, this isn't a unique problem to them. My guess is that right now, similar situations happen with the Nintendo Switch store, Xbox, PS4 and others. The real fault lies in a combination of the parents not monitoring or securing their phones, and the original settings that allowed you to save a password for those stores and not require it upon each purchase. Facebook is guilty of many many things, but this seems overhyped.
Your point is well-taken. In your case, the responsible thing to do then would be to notify the TSA and the authorities at the airport to your concerns. It would not be "research", however, to post the combination to that door on the Internet, or to reveal its location. This is analogous to what he did. It's one thing to point out flaws in order to help address them. It's another thing entirely to create tools and resources to help people exploit holes in the system.
Airport security is not tight, nor anywhere near a bulletproof system. But his actions in no way benefit or ameliorate this system; it only had the potential to cause more problems.
What is the actual value and goals of his research? A responsible researcher could have created a proof-of-concept, and raised awareness through media channels, research paper, blog etc. He should have also presented his research to the TSA and the airlines. Instead what he did was not research. He created a website to create fake boarding passes and released it to the public. There was no academic benefit. If I created forged passport software and released it, that's not research. Let's call this for what it is: trouble-making, not research.