Recent Posts

701

Living Room / Re: Hackers can use RFID readers to steal payment card numbers

« Last post by Renegade on February 13, 2015, 05:33 PM »

Odd. The source was blank for me in two browsers.

702

Living Room / Hackers can use RFID readers to steal payment card numbers

« Last post by Renegade on February 13, 2015, 07:55 AM »

Check this:

http://www.alexa.com...iteinfo/techworm.net

Techworm.net ranks around 25k. That's a big site.

Now, check this:

http://www.techworm....-numbers-public.html

BY DWULF ON FEBRUARY 12, 2015 HACKING NEWS, SECURITY NEWS, VULNERABILITY

New credit cards with embedded RFID chips can pose a problem with security and identity theft

A team of cyber security researchers have revealed that hackers can mobile technology to use to steal credit and debit numbers from you while you’re in public. The cards at risk are enabled with radio technology that allows you to “wave and pay.”

Its as though while you are ‘waving and paying’ a hacker lurking in vicinity is secretly reading your payment card numbers and storing them. While you are unaware of such a risk, you may receive a 440 volts shock to see unknown payments at the end of the payment cycle in your billing statement.

Radio frequencies are all over the place but the frequency most smart cards (i.e. newer debit and credit cards) are in the range of 13.56 MHz (HF) the range can be detected between 10 centimeters – 1 meter (around 2 feet max).

Just. WOW!

I'm pretty stunned.

First, 1 metre is closer to 3 feet than 2 feet, but... also, this:

That was 2010. Ranges DEMONSTRATED were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LARGER.

See here:

http://www.tombom.co.uk/extreme_rfid.pdf

If you want to see some seriously scary stuff, do this:

1) Visit this URL: http://www.tombom.co.uk
2) View the source.
3) Crap your pants.

Lesson Learned: BE VERY AFRAID!!!

703

Living Room / Re: Movies or films you've seen lately

« Last post by Renegade on February 13, 2015, 07:19 AM »

^I'd add Thomas Ligotti and Poppy Z. Brite in with Matheson as well. Brilliant - utterly brilliant storytellers both. And, with Matheson, are some of the very few that can instil that same sense of 'absolute otherness' and cosmic dread that Lovecraft strove for.

-40hz (February 12, 2015, 02:57 PM)

As a fellow Lovecraft fan, I'm curious now. I don't know the references to Ligotti or Brite or Matheson (or not by name anyways).

Where should I look?

704

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 13, 2015, 07:13 AM »

I'm only going to address 1 issue for the sake of time.

I didn't argue with any of your manufacturer data, only the endless stream of logical fallacies you added to string them together into an anti-vaccination argument.

-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)

You entirely missed the point of the argument. Let me post it from above again with a clarification of the point that you missed at the end:

ARGUMENT 1

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
b) Unvaccinated childred are "higher risk".

Conclusion:
c) Unvaccinated children should be excluded from schools.

ARGUMENT 2

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
d) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine are "higher risk" for a period of time. (Information given by the manufacturer.)

Conclusion:
e) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine should be excluded from schools for a period of time.

CLARIFICATION

The argument is not against vaccination. The argument is that the 2 above arguments are of identical forms and accepting one entails accepting the other if one is to be logically consistent.

I'll put this in symbolic logic so that there is zero confusion.

Note: I have reformulated it in one minor way, i.e. it is a given that unvaccinated children present a higher risk of infecting others. This merely cleans up the language a bit and avoids a step that (almost) everyone already accepts as true, so it shouldn't be controversial.


SYMBOLIC LOGIC FOR ARGUMENT 1

If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.

1) a --> b

Where:

a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
b = a child should be excluded from school

If a child has not received a vaccination against a disease, that child presents a higher risk of infecting others.

2) c --> d

Where:

c = a child has not received a vaccination against a disease
d = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others

3) a = d

4) c --> a (by substitution from 3)

At this point, we accept 'a' as a given.

5) a (accepted as given)

6) b (affirming the antecedent from 1 (modus ponens))

The conclusion then is "a child should be excluded from school".

SYMBOLIC LOGIC FOR ARGUMENT 2

If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.

1) a --> b

Where:

a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
b = that child should be excluded from school

If a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious, that child presents a higher risk of infecting others.

2) c --> d

Where:

c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious
d = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others

3) a = d

4) c --> a (by substitution from 3)

At this point, we accept 'a' as a given.

5) a (accepted as given)

6) b (affirming the antecedent from 1 (modus ponens))

The conclusion then is "a child should be excluded from school".


If anything, I'm arguing to keep children out of school. I'm sure that would gain me a LOT more fans than your argument.

That you've chosen to see this as an argument against vaccination indicates to me that you're either simply being beligerent, or you're not reading what I wrote, or you don't understand basic logic (which I highly doubt - I know you're a smart person and not an idiot).

1. Live virus immunizations put immunized children at risk.

People do not spread diseases. They spread bacteria and viruses, which may, or may not, result in a disease.

-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)

You're merely being pedantic here with no real substance.

Your hypothesis is directly contradicted by time tested theory, and you provide no evidence to either support it or disprove the theory. It is, therefore, a false premise.

-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)

From what I've reposted above, you're claiming that premise 'c' is false. i.e.

c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious

Let's clarify a bit.

I took a shortcut there. I combined a bit. Separating it out:

m = a child has received a vaccination against a disease
n = that vaccination could make the child contagious

So, c is just "m & n". m is uncontroversial. So, you are denying n.

I cited this:



That supports n.

I also cited a specific instance, to which you said:

Finding a single person who died after exposure to varicella virus introduced by vaccination proves exactly nothing.

-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)

So, when presented with evidence, you simply deny it. Very convenient. 

(That he died is irrelevant. The point is that he was infected.)

You continue from there:

The question isn't whether varicella still kills people in that segment of the population. It's how the number killed because of the vaccine compares to those killed without it. According to the CDC, that number has plummeted. Once again, you're arguing against not just the accepted theory, but also the statistical data which proves it. Another false premise busted.

-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

I presented clear evidence from the manufacturer with a VAERS case to back it up, i.e. counter examples. I only need to give 1 counter example to prove my case. I don't need 2. I don't need 3 or more. I need 1 and only 1. Check the syllogism that I set up for easier reading again.

Here's that premise that you seem to really hate once again, just to be clear:

c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious

Or:

n = that vaccination could make the child contagious

We have unambiguous evidence to illustrate that n is true.

Now, I do get what you're trying to illustrate, but you've been clumbsy in trying show that I've commited some kind of fallacy, which I haven't.

Rather, you've misdirected your objection. You should be attacking this:

a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others

That is where statistics come into play, and THEN you get to actually have some fun in attacking the argument I made.

The key there is to go after "higher" and qualify that.

So, just to invent some BS, simple numbers for the sake of argument,

(NOTE: I mean SIMPLE as that is all that is needed. We could create complex non-linear models that account for population sizes, etc., but it doesn't serve any significant purpose for this discussion. So PLEASE... Have the courtesy of giving a charitable read instead of accusing me of "false premises" for a change.)

let's say that a vaccinated child is our base number and equivalent to a 0% increase. We'll take an unvaccinated child to increase the chance of 1 or more other children becoming infected by 5% (which is unrealistically high, but let's just use SIMPLE whole numbers to start).

The question now becomes about what the chance of a newly vaccinated child infecting other children is.

UC = Unvaccinated Child
NVC = Newly Vaccinated Child

If an NVC increases the chance of other infections by 5% or more, and we accept this:

        If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.

And you accept that UCs should be excluded, then we obviously exclude the NVC child as they present a higher risk than UCs.

If an NVC increases the chance of other infections by less than 5%, then it is possible to deny that they should be excluded from school.

HOWEVER... In that example of 5% and >= or < 5%, we should recognise that the numbers are simple, and that reality is bound to have very different numbers, and most importantly, that threshold will not be that simple to define.

It is more likely that we would end up dealing with orders of magnitude, and that we would also then end up fueling the anti-vax arguments as the numbers would simply be so low (for at least one of UCs and NVCs) as to not create much statistical concern.

The only way to "pre-empt" anti-vax arguments is to set a statistical threshold prior to discovery. This eliminates the possibility of maliciously singling out UCs to be excluded from school. And given the foaming at the mouth, rabid, vicious nature of this debate, it's a legitimate concern.

705

Living Room / Re: Funky Character Art

« Last post by Renegade on February 12, 2015, 03:18 AM »

@App - Nifty owls!   

At different font sizes, the expression can seem to change:

٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶

-Deozaan (February 12, 2015, 01:59 AM)

That is definitely funky! Some weird kerning there. 

706

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 09:05 PM »

Since I know how long I'd end up spending if I decided to respond to even the majority of it, I'll attempt to control myself and focus on just a couple posts.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Same. I'll just hit a few points.

to play devil's advocate.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

It wouldn't be much fun if I didn't.

I like the cut of your strawman's jib! Good thing he's no true Scotsman or else your your ad hominem left hook might not have landed.

The Japanese Encephalitis vaccine is specifically recommended only for people traveling to certain areas in Asia, and, even then, only if they are going to be staying for a long period of time. The word for a doctor who recommended it as part of the standard course of vaccination isn't religious. It's quack.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Oh! Somebody read that! Nice! I was waiting for someone to call me on it.

The examples I picked there were quite deliberate. It's utterly insane for someone living in rural Canada to get a Japanese encephalitis shot.

Because it's not needed. And there are no strong arguments for it.

But what about vaccines for diseases that are sexually transmitted or transmitted through sharing needles?

Are infants at risk?

I don't know too many junkie whore infants.

Hepatitis vaccine given at birth.

I've already mentioned cervical cancer vaccines for boys.

Infants, small children, and the elderly are typically listed as "high risk" candidates for disease, etc. Why would anyone vaccinate an infant for a disease that they would only receive if they were raped or their junkie, infected parents stuck them with dirty needles?

No - it's not a strawman at all. It's to illustrate that some vaccine schedules are overly aggressive and include unnecessary vaccines.

Numbers derived from a false premise don't lie. In fact, they don't tell us anything at all. Used skillfully, though, they can lay the foundation for an effective appeal to consequences.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

My point there was to illustrate that death isn't the only possible consequence. I'm not sure what you're driving at. If anything, this is a good argument for vaccination.

Nobody is more sceptical than me about pharmaceutical industry research. I'm familiar with the sort of nonsense they use to prop up their patent-based business model. Mike Masnick has written about them at Techdirt quite a bit over the years, and I wouldn't want to use the language that comes to mind when I think about it.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Mike is definitely one of my favourite bloggers out there.

If only we had someone else who aggregated data from more reliable sources, perhaps even directly from medical professionals, and provided that data to the public. We could call it the Centers for Disease Control. CDC has a nice ring to it, don't you think? They could even put up a website dedicated to it.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

I'm well aware of the VAERS database. I didn't want to bring it up because it all too quickly degenerates into a blithering mass of profanity in just about every discussion that it is in. I'm trying pretty hard to skip those toxic elements of the debate.

Honestly, your appeals to emotion aren't really strong enough to warrant that level of mental gymnastics. The Russian judge gives this one a 2.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Doesn't matter. That was a throwaway. (Also, please notice that I have omitted a lot about the history of the courts and legislation there.)

Ironically, your anecdotal evidence matches the actual science.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Regarding that whole section - good write up.

I'll throw in that there are similarities in other areas as well, e.g. measles comes in a few flavours (apart from "German measles, etc.).

Oh, I just remembered a bit more insanity... This is fun~!

That's because it's so easy. You're cherry picking facts, avoiding any semblance of context, proclaiming your own facts without even the pretense of evidence, and stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies. That's why they call it pseudo science.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Really?

You're cherry picking facts,

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

See below.

avoiding any semblance of context,

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

I gave the context. Varivax and chickenpox. Although, I did do that in my next post. You had the context.

proclaiming your own facts without even the pretense of evidence,

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Seriously? Like, really?

I presented information from the MANUFACTURER.

and stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Pure nonsense.

ARGUMENT 1

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
b) Unvaccinated childred are "higher risk".

Conclusion:
c) Unvaccinated children should be excluded from schools.

ARGUMENT 2

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
d) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine are "higher risk" for a period of time. (Information given by the manufacturer.)

Conclusion:
e) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine should be excluded from schools for a period of time.

You have some explaining to do for accusing me of "stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies". From what I can see there, it's a pretty simple syllogism.

While I didn't draw it out as clearly before, I didn't figure that I really needed to outline the logic for such a simple syllogism.

What I illustrated there is that where argument 1 is acceptable to some people, argument 2 isn't, even though they are THE EXACT SAME LOGIC.


If I made an error, the error was here:

but in the second instance, we have clear evidence that the child is contagious.

I should have qualified that as:

but in the second instance, we have clear evidence that the child is potentially contagious.

That's why they call it pseudo science.

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

If you have a problem with the science, take it up with the manufacturer.

Check to see if your hypothetical has any basis in reality

-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)

Like I said, refer to the manufacturer. It's their "hypothetical". Not mine.

Here's a non-hypothetical from the VAERS database (2013VAERSDATA/VAX):

VAERS_ID   RECVDATE   STATE   AGE_YRS   CAGE_YR   CAGE_MO   SEX   RPT_DATE   SYMPTOM_TEXT   DIED   DATEDIED   L_THREAT   ER_VISIT   HOSPITAL   HOSPDAYS   X_STAY   DISABLE   RECOVD   VAX_DATE   ONSET_DATE   NUMDAYS   LAB_DATA   V_ADMINBY   V_FUNDBY   OTHER_MEDS   CUR_ILL   HISTORY   PRIOR_VAX   SPLTTYPE
492174   05/21/2013   NY   15         M   05/21/2013   This spontaneous report as received from a other health professional (medical student) refers to a currently 15 years old male patient with T cell precursor lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing chemotherapy. On an unknown date the patient's brothers were vaccinated with a dose of varicella virus vaccine live (manufacturer unknown) lot # dose not reported, it was not known if the patient had been vaccinated. On an unknown date, the patient experienced disseminated varicella (hospitalization) and died (on an unspecified date). The cause of death was unknown. At the time of the report the outcome for disseminated varicella, patient's brothers were vaccinated with a dose varicella virus vaccine live were unknown. Additional information has been requested. The following information was obtained through follow-up and/or provided by the government. 05/28/13 Death Certificate Received. Final Cause of Death: Multi-organ System Failure due to or as a consequence of Varicella Zoster Viremia due to or as a consequence of Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia.  05/24/13 Vaccine records/medical records received. Service dates 06/06/01 to 08/05/11. DOB 11/18/97.   Y   05/08/2013      Y               N               OTH   OTH   No other medications   Chemotherapy; Precursor T-lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukaemia         WAES1305USA010047

VAERS_ID   VAX_TYPE   VAX_MANU   VAX_LOT   VAX_DOSE   VAX_ROUTE   VAX_SITE   VAX_NAME
494750   VARCEL   MERCK & CO. INC.   H009535      SC   LL   VARICELLA (VARIVAX)

And please, don't blame me for presenting actual evidence. I didn't make it. I didn't file the report. I don't maintain the database. If you don't like the evidence, then take it up with the CDC and vaccine manufacturer.

But, like I said, the topic is pretty toxic. It's simply impossible to even present facts or evidence from the manufacturers or CDC without being accused of all sorts of shenanigans. This is in part why I've tried to focus on the actual logic (or lack of) that fuels the "debate" (or screaming match, as it were).

I'd like to continue, but have to get back to the salt mines.

707

Living Room / Re: Movies or films you've seen lately

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 09:40 AM »

I'd never seen a "One Step Beyond" episode before this evening.

The first episode? Pretty darn cool.

Spooky?

http://en.wikipedia....e_Wreck_of_the_Titan

Actually, if you know a bit about the history there, it sounds planned. Much worse than just "spooky".

708

Living Room / Funky Character Art

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 08:17 AM »

Just for fun. I'm sure everyone has seen them, but has no idea how to type them.

ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ

Maybe a mini-collection would be fun?

709

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 07:14 AM »

Actually... I think this off-topic bit has been productive. I believe that I inadvertently hit on an important point above:

Actually, this is an excellent example of where the ad hominem argument is good. (Would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your children? Same argument and same basic case.)

For anyone reading that is not well versed in logic and argumentation theory:

Thus, a good ad hominem is:

    An argument that a person's view should not be given credence or should be rejected outright because the person is deemed to be (i) not knowledgeable, or (ii) untrustworthy, or (iii) biased.

-Good Reasoning Matters! (Little, Groarke, Tindale, 1989)

(No link - it's from a paper book!  )

The anti-vax argument is often ii and iii. However, there are some that claim i, i.e. that the science is wrong and that the researchers are... blah blah blah. I'm not going to bother with that as the claims for ii and iii are sufficient to illustrate that there are genuine objections that have not been adequately addressed. (Also, i has been addressed at length.)

-Renegade (February 11, 2015, 05:50 AM)

Peer review is in part a pro hominem argument. Given the massive amounts of fraud, I think that points ii and iii in the quote above are relevant to it.

But, I think we've also gone over that before in this thread. The above is just one more illustration.

710

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 06:50 AM »

711

Living Room / Re: Interesting "stuff"

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 06:37 AM »

(see attachment in previous post)
Today I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

-Arizona Hot (February 10, 2015, 06:13 PM)

Worth a thread of its own.

From a comment:

* Only one person used correcthorsebatterystaple.

HAHAHA! 

712

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 06:31 AM »

713

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 05:55 AM »

[/b] Why kick them out? There is an argument for not vaccinating your kids, but hoping/expecting that they will get indirect immunisation (from cross-infection) from the newly-vaccinated children they go to school with.

-IainB (February 11, 2015, 04:39 AM)

Huh  ?  That logic would imply that it's ok for other kids to get vaccine - in order to protect mine?!? - but not mine.  So I'd be anti-vaccine only for my child?  Something out of kilter there.

-barney (February 11, 2015, 05:08 AM)

No - it makes sense. If you can get the benefit (limited immunity) without the risk (adverse effects), then it makes perfect sense. However, that cross-infection isn't a guarantee - it's only a chance, which is the "out of kilter" bit.

Not sure what any of this has to do with peer review and the scientific process though...

-IainB (February 11, 2015, 04:39 AM)

Strikes me as an active example of the process, albeit by non-professionals in the field  .  Sort of a peer review of Peer Review and the Scientific Process, as it were.

-barney (February 11, 2015, 05:08 AM)

We are kind of off topic, but yes - I think there is some value in it as it does beat around that bush some. Besides, the topic will die down eventually.

714

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 11, 2015, 05:50 AM »

Oh, how we love the courts/bureaucracies in Europe~!

http://www.blacklist...722/0/38/38/Y/M.html

On September 23, 2014, an Italian court in Milan award compensation to a boy for vaccine-induced autism.  
(See the Italian document here.)
  A childhood vaccine against six childhood diseases caused the boy’s permanent autism and brain damage.  While the Italian press has devoted considerable attention to this decision and its public health implications, the U.S. press has been silent.

As in possibly contagious? Not everybody who gets vaccinated will become contagious.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 07:55 PM)

And not every unvaccinated kid gets sick.

So how about possibly having school-aged children always get vaccinated during the summer school break (as I always was) before returning to school? That's almost three full calendar months out of the classroom. Plenty of time to get it done - and recover from it. It only takes a minute.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 07:55 PM)

Sure. Just keep them locked in the closet and ruin summer for them. Besides, if they're locked in the closet/basement/dungeon, they're much safer - no cars, no pederasts, no bees, no falling off bikes, no drowning in pools/rivers, etc. etc. etc.

Ah, safety! Sweet, sweet safety!

What happens here is that a child may be sent home for not having up-to-date vaccinations (if you don't have a medical justification backed by a physician's signature or a "religious" exemption) since vaccinations are mandatory for school attendance in my town's public school system. Same rule goes for our private schools, of which there are four. The Catholic parochial school system requires proof of current vaccinations as a condition of attendance. It's spelled out in their terms of service. So between public, private, and parochial schools that's roughly 99 point something percent of all school children here.

And since school attendance (or authorized home schooling) is mandatory up to age 16 where I live, parents can run afoul of state truancy laws if their kids aren't attending school due to their not being vaccinated. So there's a bit of an incentive there as well.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 07:55 PM)

Incentive? No. That's flat out coercion. At least call it what it is and don't sugar coat it. Euphemisms don't make for an honest debate that aims at discovering truth. We are out to discover truth? Right?

That is a textbook example of the ad baculum. "Do X or else."

And it goes to show just how weak the pro-vaccine arguments are.

Resorting to force is the lowest form of argument. It effectively says, "I have no compelling logic or arguments, so I'll just become violent."

This is going to be somewhat upsetting for those that are vested in the pro side of the debate. But it doesn't make it any less true.

The fact remains that there are arguments from the anti-vax side that are never addressed, or if they are, they are not addressed in a serious way.

To make this a bit more concrete, I'll outline a fictional example and then draw the parallel.

ANDY'S COOKIES

Imagine Andy. He's selling cookies. Everyone knows that he has multiple criminal convictions for selling tainted food in the past that has crippled and killed some people. But not all of his food is tainted. In fact, most of Andy's food is perfectly good. Delicious even.

Andy knocks at your door and wants to sell you some cookies. Do you buy any? Do you recommend Andy's cookies to your friends? Do you force other people to eat Andy's cookies?

This is exactly parallel to how GSK, Merck, Eli Lilly, and many other pharmaceutical companies have been found criminally liabel many times over.

While the pro-vaccine side may make some good arguments in some places, this case is never adequately addressed. In fact, the case is further undermined by how vaccine courts are structured. The objection from the anti-vax side simply isn't addressed and it **IS** a valid argument.

Actually, this is an excellent example of where the ad hominem argument is good. (Would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your children? Same argument and same basic case.)

For anyone reading that is not well versed in logic and argumentation theory:

Thus, a good ad hominem is:

    An argument that a person's view should not be given credence or should be rejected outright because the person is deemed to be (i) not knowledgeable, or (ii) untrustworthy, or (iii) biased.

-Good Reasoning Matters! (Little, Groarke, Tindale, 1989)

(No link - it's from a paper book!   )

The anti-vax argument is often ii and iii. However, there are some that claim i, i.e. that the science is wrong and that the researchers are... blah blah blah. I'm not going to bother with that as the claims for ii and iii are sufficient to illustrate that there are genuine objections that have not been adequately addressed. (Also, i has been addressed at length.)


Just to be clear here, I am NOT advocating a position. I'm outlining arguments and weaknesses in those arguments.

I've had vaccinations, and my daughter has as well. I looked into each one individually and decided based on a LOT of reading.

I believe my conclusions were summarised above by Iain:

You can't fight the statistical odds.

-IainB (February 09, 2015, 10:36 PM)

Hopefully I've outlined a tiny bit of some parts of the debate, and hopefully illustrated where there are some breakdowns in communication and how the sides are talking past each other rather than discussing with each other.



My only firm position is that the road of forced medication is not one that should be travelled. Ever.

715

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 05:51 PM »

Ok. I stand corrected. But that's also VARIVAX. (Chicken-pox, right?) So how many more vaccines have similiar concerns precisely? Current anti-vax arguments say all vaccines are unacceptably dangerous. I don't think that's correct.  (BTW, chicken pox is a very serious illness if contracted by an elderly person or someone with severe respiratory health problems.)

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 11:22 AM)

Ooops. Yes. I should have qualified that - not serious for children, etc. My bad.

As for other vaccines that leave the patient contagious, I don't know. I remember seeing the insert for one that I had years ago mentioning this, but I don't remember what it was, though I know it wasn't for chicken-pox (I've had chicken-pox, so I don't need vaccination against it).

But please don't think that I'm trying to say "all" vaccines are bad. I'm just having fun playing the devil's advocate here.

By the same token though, there are many out there that seem to want to advance the narrative as "all vaccines are good without question".

Going back to the the chance of spreading something post vaccination - if people who are exposed are already immunized either from a previous bout with the actual disease - or have been previously vaccinated as most vaccine protocols recommend - the individual infection is extremely unlikely to spread to those exposed.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 11:22 AM)

Yes, but that's not an argument against the issue I brought up above. Typically vaccines are done on a schedule, e.g. it's probably irresponsible to inject a newborn with 5 litres of vaccines all at once. (That was sarcastic hyperbole.)

So, if you take a typical school with different ages of children, you'll end up with some children not being vaccinated when others receive their vaccines. This is pretty much unavoidable.

So... do you kick those newly vaccinated kids out of school because they're now contagious?

That's an uncomfortable question for the pro-vaccine crowd because if they want to remain consistent in their "think of the children" argument, they MUST answer "yes". Answering "no" demonstrates that they simply do not care about children's health, and that they are instead vested in the idea of vaccination (as some kind of romantic idea that makes them feel good) rather than the actual act, effects, and science behind it.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether the pro-vaccine crowd would be for kicking kids out of school while they are contagious from something like Varivax.

However, my gut tells me that the general answer would be "no". In my own experience, I don't find that many people are very consistent in their principles if it puts some sort of burden on them.

This is the same sort of thing as the "I believe in free speech BUT..." line of logic. "But" simply means that a principle is going to be abandoned.

The question there, as far as I can see, is whether or not the principle can be "saved". Have we thought it through? Have we tried to rescue it? Have we done our due diligence? Or are we simply being lazy?

716

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 10:30 AM »

@Ren - IIUC you can't (except in that rare situation with the old oral polio vaccine - which is no longer administered) come down with the illness that an attenuated-live vaccine is designed to provide immunization for unless the batch that was administered was defective. And my understanding is that cases of defective vaccine batches making it into actual circulation are extremely rare occurrences.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 08:35 AM)

Sorry, but no. There are some vaccines that make the patient contagious for a period of time. You only need to check the insert to verify.

You can find it in some inserts under some section  like in the below, 5.8 "Risk of Vaccine Virus Transmission". Here's a bit for the VARIVAX vaccine:



There are more. That's just one. The recommendation is for 6 weeks.

Here's a bit from another insert:



That lists 28 weeks, or 7 months.

Again... just what part of this is hard to understand for people? Everyone wants to believe that vaccines are some sort of magical pixie dust.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT (PSA):

VACCINES ARE NOT MAGICAL PIXIE DUST!

Vaccines are, however, damn good insurance. With vaccines it's all about risk minimization and mitigation. Because at this stage of our medical knowledge and technology, that's about as good as we can make it.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 08:35 AM)

Yes. Exactly.

But the pro-vaccine crowd almost ALWAYS touts all the positive benefits and completely ignores any of the possible adverse issues or other "inconvenient" facts. Again... this is about approaching the topic sanely and measuring benefits vs. costs.

I'm sorry, but nobody gets to choose what parts of reality apply to them. Unfortunately, 100% of reality applies to everyone... vaccine advocates included.

This only goes to show, yet once again, how the mainstream views are so grossly distorted and perverse.

What really pisses me off is all these self-righteous zealots who preach "science" and then want to ignore anything that doesn't fit their personally acceptable narrative. This is a recurring theme in many fields, not just in "vaccines".

Gravity applies to Wile E. Coyote just as it does to everyone else. Nobody escapes nature. Not even psychotic zealots.

Now, chickenpox (for the Varivax vaccine above) isn't very serious. But it's just one example. Not all vaccines are equal, and the zealots trying to portray them as all being unicorn farting rainbows do nothing to help the situation.

Each vaccine needs to be treated on its own merits. Period. End of story. Most offer great benefits, but lying about them does not engender trust.

Given the massive disinformation and the non-stop lies about vaccines, can we blame people for being against them?

Or, would you trust someone that you knew constantly lied to you?

This isn't difficult to understand -- the vaccine zealots do more harm than good when they constantly lie and cover up inconvenient facts time and time again.

717

Living Room / Re: Movies or films you've seen lately

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 10:00 AM »

They're both out on DVD!

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 09:03 AM)

One Step Beyond seems to have 3 seeders on TPB.

Not so much luck for Thriller though.

The Alcoa thing is interesting though... They have quite a history.

718

Living Room / Re: DARPA Hacks GM's OnStar To Remote Control A Chevrolet Impala

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 09:54 AM »

As Stoic alluded to earlier, in any tit-for-tat tech exchange, the bad inevitably comes along with the good.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 08:49 AM)

All too often, it seems to precede the good...

it will end badly.

-40hz (February 10, 2015, 08:49 AM)

Yep.

719

Living Room / Re: DARPA Hacks GM's OnStar To Remote Control A Chevrolet Impala

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 07:27 AM »

+10 on the old school - straight mech - classic, I'm shopping for a project now.

-Stoic Joker (February 10, 2015, 06:32 AM)

I will be in the project market pretty soon. We're almost ready for the big move, and one of those things that I'm looking forward to is getting back to having enough space to DO stuff.

The last while I've been going nuts on educating myself on all kinds of things for that. Too much to learn though... I'm guessing a lot will be "trial by fire".

Back to cars...

I definitely want at least 1 vehicle that can't be shut down out of the blue. Forget DARPA -- I remember what it was like to be 14, and building something to shut down all the cars within X radius would totally have been a "fun" thing to experiment with... We don't always think very clearly when we're 12 or 14.

720

Living Room / DARPA Hacks GM's OnStar To Remote Control A Chevrolet Impala

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 05:50 AM »

Connected car? IoT? Oh, sure! This is totally gonna work out just peachy!

http://jalopnik.com/...evrolet-i-1684593523

In a broad-reaching report by 60 Minutes about DARPA and the Internet of Things, the Department of Defense has shown that it can hack General Motors' OnStar system to remote control a last-gen Chevrolet Impala.9

DARPA has a budget of around half a billion dollars a year and its Information Innovation Office is headed by Dan Kaufman, who employs a team of researchers that focus on increasing national security through revolutionary projects. One of those projects involves hacking the connected car, and this is what they found:

[VIDEO]

According to the report, which is scant on technical details, DARPA engineers dialed in through the Impala's OnStar system, transmitted a data packet that confused the internal computers, and then planted a malicious bit of code that allowed it to reprogram control systems on the ECU.10

That allowed them to do everything from turn on the windshield wipers to honk the horn, and even controll the throttle and brakes, putting a hapless Lesley Stahl through a line of cones.11

The piece from 60 Minutes, which doesn't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to automotive reporting (and more), is bolstered by a report from the office of Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey. The report, due out tomorrow, supposedly states that all new cars can be hacked and that, according to 60 Minutes, "only two out of 16 car makers can diagnose or respond to an infiltration in real-time."12131415

We're waiting to get our hands on the report from Senator Markey's office and have reached out to DARPA for more details on how the OnStar vulnerability was exploited. GM has yet to respond to a request for comment.

You can watch the full story from 60 Minutes here.

More at the link with video.

This is why I want to buy 1 extra old beater car for $500 or so -- just to have something that isn't connected.

If you feel like going down the rabbit hole, just say "Michael Hastings" 3x in front of the bathroom mirror in the dark...

721

Living Room / Re: Movies or films you've seen lately

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 05:41 AM »

Working my way through the original 1963 series:

(see attachment in previous post)

Ah, the good old days

-4wd (February 06, 2015, 05:32 AM)

Heh! I did the entire series about 2 years ago. It's still an excellent series! Don't forget the new series as well. It's also quite enjoyable! 

I also did the Twilight Zone -- both the original and new series.

722

Living Room / Re: Interesting "stuff"

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 05:32 AM »

Being a casual sport archer, I found the following video by Anna Maltese (archery instructor, bow-maker, tournament competitor, fire archery practitioner) rebutting some of Lars ("fastest archer on the planet") Andersen's recent postulations rather interesting:

-40hz (February 09, 2015, 08:50 AM)

The original video was pretty fun! (I watched that first.)

The rebuttal, not so much -- she's basically just heckling a magician (did you really believe that the magician's wand was exhumed from an ancient tomb in 1837 after...). Perhaps she should have read the original video's description. Buddy mentions some of the things she takes issue with in her rebuttal. Reading all of it, and applying the principle of charity (a lost art today that I have recently rediscovered from my extensive historical readings!!! ), it seems that Lars is aiming at producing entertainment much like street entertainers and magicians have been doing for ages (complete with lots of embellishments), and not a historical documentary. But, that was just my read on it Lars -- perhaps I should have taken him much more seriously?

723

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 04:38 AM »

This may be off topic, but I wouldn't mind some of your input here.
Recently, a lot of people around me have been getting worked about about the anti-vaccination issues.  I've been listening to the arguments, and I must say that I'm legitimately confused.  Politics or beliefs aside, the question I want to answer is, "Should I vaccinate?  How do I make this decision wisely?"

-superboyac (February 09, 2015, 05:02 PM)

If you consult with a doctor that isn't blindly religious on the issue, most likely your doctor will recommend vaccination, but not necessarily for everything. Not all people need all vaccines. There actually is room for thought on the topic, though the current dialectic pretty much excludes any rational debate.

For example, do you need to be vaccinated for Japanese encephalitis? It's a horrible, crippling disease that utterly destroys people. Chances are that you don't as it is only found in certain places.

Are you at risk for cervical cancer? If you're male, then no. And here is where the insanity begins, because there are quite a few people that want forced vaccinations for boys. I.am.not.kidding.

Talk to 1 or more doctors. Read up on the issues.

The closest I've been able to come to an answer is along these lines:
Let's say there's a disease where I have 5% chance of dying.  The vaccine is available, and with it there is the 1% risk of dying.  So in that case, the gamble is mathematically worth the risk.

-superboyac (February 09, 2015, 05:02 PM)

That's correct given that you will get the disease. If there's a 1% chance of contracting the disease, then 5% * 1% vs. 1% doesn't justify the vaccine, mathematically that is. But that doesn't take into account other possible problems from the disease, e.g. 50% chance of blindness, etc.

All too often people talk about mortality rates, but blindness, deafness, and many other horrible effects also come with some diseases.

Then there are diseases like rubella that aren't serious (or as serious as others). Rubella is mostly relevant for pregnant women.

But it's just not that simple.  Do we know these percentages?  What if the vaccine is for a non-lethal disease, like a cold or mild flu?  Are these risk quantification reliable?  I don't know the answer at all, to be honest.  And it's a sensitive issue in my circles as there actually are cases of life-altering mental problems that have been attributed to vaccination.  I never ask, but I want to ask how do we know it was the vaccines? 

-superboyac (February 09, 2015, 05:02 PM)

How do we know? Good question. When you look at some of the crippling effects in some cases, and the timelines, then it's pretty obvious, but that's not scientific proof, though it is sometimes enough to get settlements from the secret vaccine courts.

When a friend of mine gets a flu shot, he's pretty much guaranteed to get the flu -- and he no longer gets any flu shots. But, that's annecdotal.

I think it really depends on the person - not all people are the same.

Oh, I just remembered a bit more insanity... This is fun~!

A common argument that I read all the time is about "the children" and how people want to exclude unvaccinated kids from schools.

Ok. For the sake of argument... Let's run with that.

Some vaccines turn the recipient into a carrier for anywhere from 2 weeks to 90 days.

So, for those vaccines, shouldn't vaccinated children be excluded from schools until they are no longer contagious? Not all kids can get the same vaccine at the same time (if that even mattered).

In the first bit above, we have no evidence that any unvaccinated child has any disease, but in the second instance, we have clear evidence that the child is contagious. What to do?

Fun fun fun~!

I do like to pick on the pro-vaccine crowd as they're such wonderful targets, and especially the sanctimonious, uneducated ones that merely parrot what they heard on CNN. Picking on the anti-vaccine crowd isn't really much fun. Like, how do you make fun of a kid getting measles, which has a 0.1% mortality rate in developed countries? There really isn't much of a joke there.

724

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 10, 2015, 04:12 AM »

And there are far more options than the false dilemma/excluded middle fallacy you're introducing.

-40hz (February 09, 2015, 10:55 AM)

I was wondering if I'd get called out on that~!  

It's by obstetrician gynecologist Dr. Amy Tuteur M.D. And the rest can be found on her blog The Skeptical OB.

-40hz (February 09, 2015, 11:28 AM)

Regarding the article there, it was a nicely done bit of name calling, and not much more.

The vax debate is pretty toxic. Nobody actually tries to communicate. It's nothing more than a yelling match with lots of name calling in the VAST majority of cases.

The most toxic people are the rabid pro-vaccine people that do their utmost to alienate the exact people whose behaviour they want to change. It's counter-productive at best. Then there's the crowd screaming for governments to make them mandatory... like that'd ever work out well...

This is not a scientific crisis. It's a people problem.

-40hz (February 09, 2015, 04:44 PM)

Yep. That.

Nor do I see where doing so should automatically point the discussion towards the basement.

-40hz (February 09, 2015, 04:44 PM)

Because the topic is toxic. People are not even remotely rational about it. It would degenerate quickly.

Now, a discussion about the discussion, that can probably be had much more sanely.

725

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by Renegade on February 09, 2015, 10:32 AM »

^Far from it.

-40hz (February 09, 2015, 01:17 AM)

So you believe in corporate research then?

(You can't have it all and have it both ways...)

B-b-b-but...