Example: Fill & Download for Free

Molly Fro, (Below) The base used in e cigarettes is glycerol. Glycerol is an alcohol, not a lipid.Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos responded to a research paper claiming that a patient had developed Lipoid Pneumonia as a result of vaping. This is what he had to say…“…doctors and scientists should consult their textbooks before making such statements. To be exact, they should go back to chemistry books of secondary school. That will remind them that glycerol is an ALCOHOL, not a lipid. Therefore it is absolutely impossible that glycerol can cause lipoid pneumonia, even if it is aspirated in liquid form! That would violate basic chemistry laws!!”http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/157-glycerolTaking the incident in Spain where two doctors diagnosed (correctly) lipoid https://pdfs.semanticschopneumonia and blamed (incorrectly) e cigarette use. lar.org/aa92/91b31eae8f1f6b51eea32511721d33f81313.pdfMaking the basic error of thinking that glycerol is an oil, adding to that the e cigarette was withdrawn, they concluded that the e cigarette was at fault.Another case of Lipoid pneumonia was published in Chest Journal. An Unexpected Consequence of Electronic Cigarette Use At the time, knowing that there was no oil in e liquid, I looked at the list of medications that the lady was on. One stood out - a metered dose asthma inhalator. Using Google (I am not a pharmacist) I found a list of the ingredients, amongst which was, oleic acid, which, of course is a lipid. This too would have been withdrawn. Using the doctors own logic: her condition could have been caused by her asthma inhalator, not her e cigarette. You should also note that her lung condition (asthma?) was pre-existing, but she had just started using an e cigarette.This implies that she was using the inhalator long before the e cigarette. I am not a doctor but believe lipoid pneumonia is caused by the accumulation of oil in the lung… this in turn implies an exposure over time.For convenience the PDF can be found here… https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aa92/91b31eae8f1f6b51eea32511721d33f81313.pdfYou make a valid point in that flavorings may contain toxins (oils)which might cause harm, however, these exist in such tiny quantities that they are, in some cases, found at higher levels in ambient air than in e cigarette vapour. For example, in the kitchen where formaldehyde, metals (and yes), oils abound . Take a look at the oil filter on the extractor and see what it has been ‘breathing’ in… It did not come from my e cigarette, that is for sure.As for metals: The publicity and fear mongering regarding metals found in e cigarette vapour are outrageous. No, that term is a gross understatement. The publicity and fear mongering is, ‘murderous.’Read… Are Metals Emitted from Electronic Cigarettes a Reason for Health Concern? A Risk-Assessment Analysis of Currently Available Literature“In this study the hazardous potential of metals emitted to EC aerosol was evaluated, by using regulatory standards of acceptable exposure. The results show that the levels of daily exposure from EC use are significantly lower compared to acceptable exposure from inhalational medications and by orders of magnitude lower than the regulatory limits for daily occupational exposure. It is important to emphasize that such analysis was performed by using worst case scenarios: the daily exposure from ECs was overestimated (doubling the average number of daily puffs), while in the secondary analysis we additionally assumed that a person breaths with the resting respiratory rate and tidal volume over the whole day (underestimating the level of acceptable daily exposure calculated from MRLs and RELs). Still, the levels of metals exposure from EC use were of minimal apparent health concern. Exposure to multiple metals is also observed in medicinal products such as nicotine inhalers.”I will emphasize, Exposure to multiple metals is also observed in medicinal products such as nicotine inhalers.So where does that leave your assertion that e cigarettes are “potentially… more harmful than actual tobacco cigarettes”?The poison is in the dose.Let take an example: look at the formation of formaldehyde in e cigarette vapour.The creation of formaldehyde is easy… keep breathing. The creation of formaldehyde in e cigarette vapour (and creating a scare) is a little bit more complex.Take an old fashioned, outdated tank system with a 2.1 ohm, capillary activated coil.Match it up to a modern high powered, variable voltage / wattage vaporizer batteryPut it in a ‘puffing machine’ which does not replicate real usage.Make sure that the puff regime creates heat by overlong draws on the device and tiny intervals in between.If that does not produce the desired result, turn up the power, and again, and again, and again. Keep doing this till what you want to achieve is achieved.Voila! We have more formaldehyde than is found in a cigarette.Send the results with a suggested headline, missing out all of the above, to the media via a press release.And this is exactly how the formaldehyde scare was initiated.A note on the use of the term, ‘murderous,’ above.The assertion that e cigarettes are as, or more, toxic than tobacco smoking is outrageous. People hearing this will possibly be put off from making the transition from smoking to vaping as a result.The people responsible for fear mongering in the face of the evidence, by creating and presenting junk science to support their view, must take a share of the responsibility that they have contributed to the suffering and untimely death of those who listened to them.

Following are some types of information technology security controlsSecurity PoliciesProceduresPlansDevices SoftwareThese are further divided into 3 categoriesPreventiveDetectiveCorrectivePreventive: These are designed to prevent cybersecurity threats.Detective: These tools detect the cybersecurity threats while these are in the beginning, in process, or completed and inform the security personnel.Corrective: These come into play after the attack to reduce the data loss and restoration of the information systems.Following are some forms of security controls:Access ControlsProcedural ControlsTechnical ControlsCompliance ControlsAccess Controls: These controls include access to the physical hardware or other equipment for example security guards, locks, and fences. When it comes to virtual access these come as privileged access authorization.Procedural Controls: These include information security training, information security framework compliance, and incident response plans and procedures.Technical Controls: These include multifactor authentication when logging in, antivirus software, firewalls, and WAFs (Web Application Firewalls).Compliance Controls: These include privacy laws, and cybersecurity rules, frameworks, and standards which reduce the cybersecurity risk. These controls require to perform an information security risk assessment, implement information security requirements also implementing penalties for non-compliance.Main information security standards includeNIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Special Publication 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and OrganizationsISO (International Organization for Standardization) standard ISO 27001, Information Security ManagementPCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard)HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)

Both, and I emphasize, both of our online and offline behaviour are real. They are our real selves. One doesn’t get more validity from the other, if real is equated with being genuine or authentic.Before we get onto the issue, the bigger assumption needs to be problematized.Is online behaviour “false” behaviour? Why do we assume that we don’t show our “real” face in online behaviour, which must be photoshopped beyond duckface selfies?Why do we assume that the behaviour which we engage on online, is thrust upon us from some external devices of entities, failing to comply with which could bring us a penalty of being dead in some ether-chamber through constant torture?The semantics of “real” is the subject of more academic discussion, but if we are hung up on the logic of “real” behaviour of “real” life as “true”, “authentic”, “unfiltered”, “genuine”, then we are only pulling more wool over our eyes.What is Real Behaviour?Every bit of that gym achievement shared, the tweets made, the fishface and duckface selfies, the pearls-of-wisdom posters put forth in passive-aggressive mode, the rants, the trolling, the food pictures, are real.We tend to put the stamp of “real” on things we perceive are objectively existing out there—independent of our ability to perceive them—as for example potato chips and bridges, but we fail to consider the fact that each of those “objective” realities are categorized so because of how we construct them in our heads, based on our sensory capabilities.So, just because we can’t really see the sweat behind someone’s gymming or running activity, does not mean it is not real.Did the person really run that much?That is not the question we should be asking.When someone tells you that they love you “all this much”, how do you know that they are being “real”? How do you know your and their definition of “all this much” aligns perfectly? You know because you can “feel” it.You also know something is real when you see a repeated pattern—a consistency. Consistency is the sauce that makes a behavioural pattern more real than others. Let’s say, you have a friend who is soft-hearted, warm and driven by emotions. Your friend would always help you whenever they would see you in pain. Your friend coming to your aid whenever you are in a crisis situation—is consistency; which tells you s/he is a real friend. So, when you see your friend post cynic stuff online, which are very far from the emotional person s/he is, you conclude that they are “just like that” online, and you emphasize that in “real life”, in “reality”, they are driven by emotions.Herein is the mistake we all make. To err, is human.The issue herein is that since we use all our sensory capabilities to construct “reality”, when we can’t do that in terms of online behaviour (because you can’t smell your friend’s food pictures or can’t feel the breeze of your colleague’s tropical island paradise pictures), we tend to stamp online behaviour as “not real”.This is an assumption on definition of “real” behaviour: that true assessment of a person’s character is made through how we see them with all our five senses.Therefore, if Jack says that he’s missing his parent two years after the parent have died, and if you know that in “real” life (meaning, offline life) Jack didn’t even meet or talk about the parent for the last 10 years, you assume Jack is being fake. Therefore, the next logical conclusion is: “Jack’s behaviour is not real”.But both of Jack’s personas are real. Jack projecting that image of missing his parent, comes from a different reason than your assumption that Jack has to portray his true emotions all the time. If Jack is being what somebody would call a ‘jackass’ in offline (“real”) life, while he’s being an emotional and (very opposite) Jack online, then the difference in his personality styles should be attributed to how inconsistent he appears, rather than your assessment of the situation based on offline interaction; because, that is how Jack is.One Jack doesn’t become more authentic or accurate than the other.If you know there is mismatch in the truth reports, then you should note it down in the margins of your personality assessment report of others, and use that point of mismatch as a criterion of your assessment.Our behaviour varies according to the audienceIt is just not in online behaviour that we put out contrasting behaviour and emotions, and not do what we mean.Contrasting emotions and behaviour are part of our lives all the time. We call office and say we are sick when we just don’t feel like going to the office. We cancel out plans with our friends by saying our cat is sick, when we just don’t want to go out. We say we are friends with someone, yet don’t leave a single opportunity to badmouth them in their backs. We suppress our yawns and listen attentively to lectures, because our lives depend upon being interested audiences.Therefore, to understand this issue, first we need to recognize the issue that’s lying right under our nose—we behave according to a risk assessment procedure based on our audience. We are continuously creating and re-creating our selves—this process is both conscious and unconscious.When the audience changes, our behaviour changes accordingly. The extent and accuracy of our self-disclosure changes accordingly.You might see your friend continuously fight, bicker and talk badly about their spouse, but see a 500-words paragraph status message on their anniversary, professing their love for each other, the content of such being focused on the audience.It doesn’t matter to them that you know the truth and could call them out.They know you wouldn’t, because you have the image of a friend to conform to, and nobody wants to be the bad person to people they know and meet in real life.We tend to reserve being the bad person aka troll, for the audience we are least likely to meet.What does “being online” bring on the table?1. The opportunity to become our uninhibited selves.This mirrors our need of self-actualization—to project the self we feel “accurately” describes us, or should describe us. That’s what we want to send out--the intention is as genuine as it gets. It might not match with our own personality reports of others, but you can talk to a lot of people online while be looked upon as a serious, quiet and shy person offline. You behave like that, based on the audience. Which one is the real you? Who decides?2. Instant Rewards from external validation:You just need to change your profile pic when you’re having a crappy day. There will be people who will ‘like’ the picture of the self you’re sending out to the world. Always. As humans, we are hard-wired to seek rewards and online interaction provides much more chances to receive instant rewards, and greater reach in order to receive rewards, through likes, upvotes, re-shares, friendly interaction, etc. Being online is also a much bigger, open, platform to get yourself across where you don’t really need to stifle what you want to be, and what’s great, you can really channelize the unleashing of the inner you. It doesn’t need to be in binary standpoints of all or nada.3. The ability to send out our revised, edited and restored drafts of ourselves:This is where the debate gets intense. Which one is the real you? The raw one or the processed one?When it comes to sugar, there is an answer: raw sugar and processed sugar are both sugar. Both Extra-Virgin Olive Oil and Processed Olive Oil are Olive oils.But when it comes to humans, we are more likely to be territorial and say: this is their real self, that is their fake self and the area in-between, is no-human’s self.Yes, being online allows us to put a filter on how we appear. We, the audience feel enraged or cheated, because that filter meddles in with the personality assessment reports we are forming and re-forming continuously, unconsciously, in our heads, based on our five senses.We know it’s too much of work—doing those personality reports—but we still never stop doing it; we are hooked on. Doing personality reports of others is integral to our survival and being humans because judging people and placing them in neat categories ensures for us, that we make no mistakes in dealing with them.And those darned filters—the edited versions of others that we receive, deceive the sensory processing of those reports. The impressions we receive do not remain consistent and that, in turn, becomes more work, as people run their own reality shows in social media.Those reality shows that people direct and act upon themselves online, hampers with our codes to interact and behave with others. But we forget that even in offline behaviour, on the same issue, we talk differently, and say different things, based on the audience involved. Your answer to the question of “What were you doing last night?” could very well change depending on whether it’s your parent asking it, your friend asking it, your romantic partner asking it or is it the status message box of facebook is asking it.Just to remind you of Erving Goffman, we are all involved in the construction of self in everyday life, by performing to our roles, to the expectations of how others will see us, swerving a little, speeding a bit, trying to control our public image. We are all actors, acting upon on the path “destiny” lands us in.4. The ability to do greater social comparison and gain more self-awareness.Social comparison theory has spoken about it in detail. There’s no doubting the fact that we determine our own personal worth by weighing in and up our situation with others. That’s how we evaluate how we are doing in life, and how others are doing in their lives. In this process, we also tend to draw in as many peers as we can get—because that’s how we believe, we will be part of a community and we will be doing something for the community. Humans are social animals—you knew this, didn’t you? This is how we tend to be social.Online behaviour illustrates this process of social comparison wonderfully. When a person sees more people doing something, regardless of whether or not s/he believes in that, s/he is more likely to engage into same behaviour—because s/he wants to be a part of the community, within which s/he can also assess where s/he stands.One day, in a phone conversation with my cousin, I mentioned I have to hang up soon, as I’m having some friends come over in the evening, so I need to go and cook. She remarked, “Oh really? You have friends coming over? Why don’t you post pictures on Facebook in the evening?”I said I wouldn’t, because that’s not me. I didn’t give her the real reason, because I knew that she wouldn’t take to it kindly. Therefore I just made a quiet statement of my possible action.My cousin called me a snob, because (she said that), I don’t do what others always do.She was a bit enraged because I said I wouldn’t post pictures of the evening dinner with my friends, whom nobody actually knew.The real reason she was enraged (I believe) is because my action of not posting pictures challenged her worldview regarding online behaviour—thereby I looked like that black sheep in a community of angelic, happy, white sheep. In addition, it didn’t give her an opportunity to see how and what I cook, based on which she could draw some social comparison of culinary skills and trends of entertaining guests, in the community of which she believed she was a part.On the issue of understanding behaviour—the basic and handy way to understand is to see where people are coming from. You might not agree with their position, but you can perfectly see why they do things the way they do. And that will enable you to be more at peace with your skills in forming personality reports of others.Image Sources: Google