A new study supports the theory that we should let our bodies dictate decisions involving risk
The researchers say that evidence is mounting to indicate that our bodies can sometimes govern how we think and feel, rather than the other way round. It also reveals that those people who are more in tune with their bodies are more likely to be led by their ‘gut feelings’.
Makes sense to me. I like being able to let my body decide on its own when to run or when to sweat based on well-established criteria instead of always having to use brain power for every micro-decision. Anyone who has seen a horror film knows what I am talking about. Directors use all kinds of methods to get the body to react instead of the brain.
Just to confuse this point a little, a scene in Jurassic Park comes to mind. Ripples in the liquid in a cup indicate danger (as opposed to a guitar string being played). Is that the brain interpreting the ripples as danger or is it the brain interpreting the ripples as vibration…and then the body decides vibration is danger? But I digress. Back to the new study:
The researchers measured participants’ physical responses to each offer by recording how much they sweated through the fingertips and how much their heart rate changed.
I did a quick search on related research and found a 1959 study that sounds oddly similar. It was called “Colorimetric Measurement of Anxiety: A clinical and experimental procedure” and says fingertip sweat is linked to “gut feelings”. So we’ve had this research for over fifty years and now? I also noted the 1959 study points out that fingertip sweat is not the same indicator as body sweat.
..prehension provoked palmar finger tip sweating without affecting a change in general bodily sweating
People have been warning me for years that rising sea levels will erode the coastline. It’s hard to fathom (pun not intended) what that really means. Fortunately a new scientific method is being developed by the American government to quantify the situation. A report called “National Assessment of Shoreline Change: Historical Shoreline Change in the Hawaiian Islands” shows a fairly significant (14 mile) loss of beach.
Because the U.S. population continues to shift toward the coast where valuable coastal property is vulnerable to erosion, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is conducting a national assessment of coastal change.
[…]
A principal purpose of the USGS shoreline change research is to develop a common methodology so that shoreline change analyses for the continental U.S., portions of Hawaii, and Alaska can be updated periodically in a consistent and systematic manner. The primary objectives of this study were to (1) develop and implement improved methods of assessing and monitoring shoreline movement, and (2) improve current understanding of the processes controlling shoreline movement.
Ok, so they’re improving our understanding…and then they give a huge caveat:
Rates of shoreline change presented herein may differ from other published rates, and differences do not necessarily indicate that the other rates are inaccurate. Some discrepancies are to be expected, considering the many possible ways of determining shoreline positions and rates of change, and the inherent uncertainty in calculating these rates. Rates of shoreline change presented in this report represent shoreline movement under past conditions and are not intended for use in predicting future shoreline positions or future rates of shoreline change
Four years ago I wrote about changes between versions of the PCI DSS with an example of subtlety from Requirement 10.7. This came up again today, so here’s an updated table:
Requirement 10.7:
DSS 1.0
DSS 1.1
DSS 1.2
DSS 2.0
An audit history usually covers a period of at least one year, with a minimum of 3 months available online.
Retain audit trail history for at least one year, with a minimum of three months online availability.
Retain audit trail history for at least one year, with a minimum of three months immediately available for analysis (for example, online, archived, or restorable from back-up).
Retain audit trail history for at least one year, with a minimum of three months immediately available for analysis (for example, online, archived, or restorable from back-up).
Sometimes I hear people explain firewall effectiveness in terms of SPF ratings on sunscreen. I like the concept but it also tempts me to pull out the annual Environmental Working Group (EWG) suncreen hall-of-shame. The EWG offers nuggets of wisdom such as this:
Sky-high SPF products may protect from sunburn, caused primarily by UVB rays, but they leave children vulnerable to skin-damaging UVA rays. Without the warning signal of sunburn, children stay in the sun too long, and UVA damage builds up. Parents who see a high-SPF label on the bottle may think it’s safe to allow their kids hours of sunburn-free beach time, but risks associated with sun exposure begin in childhood and accumulate over a lifetime.
So the next time you tell me the firewall is like 70 SPF, I might ask A or B (e.g. are you just blocking the noise or also the attack). Here’s another good example:
Consumers who shell out the bucks for pricey SPF-labeled moisturizers rarely get the sun protection they expect. There are plenty of sun care products that sell for less than $3 per ounce and offer better sun protection than those that cost up to 90 times more.
This quote is probably my favorite:
The front of a Lavera sunscreen box claims the product is “effective immediately†and there is “no need to wait.†But the side panel warns, “apply… 15 minutes before sun exposure.†Which is it?
Buyer beware. Don’t judge a firewall by its cover.
a blog about the poetry of information security, since 1995