You can always install a LINUX compatibility layer into FreeBSD, in fact it's a standard option.
Advantages:
Working with FreeBSD will prepare you somewhat better for digging around inside the guts of OS X.
Your platform is even more obscure than LINUX, which can stop a few attacks on your servers.
Disadvantages:
[insert academic kernel arguments here]
[insert academic licensing debate here]
Why do we praise closed source companies who open up a little bit, but damn open source companies who close down a little bit? This is a joke, right? As long as you're asking, how come when you add two numbers the result goes up, but when you subtract one from the other, the result goes down? Are numbers hypocrites?
Honestly, the editors here cannot possibly have become this stupid. They must just not be paying attention anymore, i.e. phoning it in. I swear, if Digg didn't exist as an example of how much stupider things could be, I'd never visit this site again.
To agree with parent, but with a bit more politesse, insulting people and organisations is not only criticism, but it's one of the most effective forms of public criticism known to man -- which is, of course, why the NZ gov't seeks to control it. Think about why they want image satire not to happen, and you will have your answer as to why the critics love to use it: IT WORKS!
The government has all the tools at its disposal to influence the public. Satire is one of the few tools the public has that is actually strong enough to fight back. Start to place controls on it, and indeed what you have is censorship that is against the public good.
> First of all, Wikipedia not being authoritative has nothing to do with whether it can be quoted to make a point. What's the relationship between those two uses?
My point is: many people think that any 'stable' (meaning "form OK" and "no edit war in progress") Wikipedia article contains a complete and accurate (remember: authoritative also means "highly accurate; definitive", this is the whole point of our dialog) account of his subject. In this perspective they think that WP is "authoritative", they say "if you don't believe me: read this WP article!" (and they mean it, this is, for them, not a fallacy). It's NOT a fallacy. It's the same as if I said, "if you don't believe me: read this newspeper". It's perfectly rational and a good argument. Something does not have to fit some definition of 'authoritative' in order to be evidence, and rules of authority certainly don't apply in casual conversation!
The response to this appeal to Wiki evidence (note -- NOT authority), that 'Wiki is not authoritative' is a *terrible* argument. It's like saying, "Newspapers aren't everything." It's just dismissing evidence out-of-hand. Both newspapers and Wiki CAN be wrong and both newspapers and wiki are *usually* right (i.e. they aren't just *random* info they both have a process in place to *attempt* to get things right). Therefore, they are both good evidence for an informal debate. A good response to this kind of evidence would be to show a conflicting source with at least as much or better reliability -- not to dismiss a whole category of evidence as if it doesn't exist and then to pretend that your sources are any better, because they probably aren't.
> (older people are more likely not to have heard of it or have only heard the word without any opinions as to its usage)
Therefore they just can't be misleaded by its contents
My point stands. So you're comparing a youngster who uses Wikipedia to an adult who doesn't know what it is, in order to prove that young people are more ignorant about the reliability or unreliability of Wikipedia? This is the point that stands? I think you could knock that point over with a feather.
> The reason is that this lesson is now being hammered into them in schools at every grade, and has been for some time. (You may not have been aware of this.) Nobody gets out of school these days without being recited this litany literally dozens of times. They may not practice what they've been preached, but believe me -- they know.
I disagree: most youngsters I know are able to defy authority (and willing to!) but unable to doubt of any "authoritative" statement on most topics (and not interested by it). Isn't it a famous experiment about an accomplice teacher delivering some stupid assertion then making a fuss when a student asks for confirmation, letting the whole class accepting the BS? Okay: I disagree, but let's say you're right, and young people are far more likely to respect 'authority' when it comes to information. What does that have to do with whether they are aware that Wikipedia should not be used for formal research and why?
They are aware, man. All of them. Just ask a few point blank instead of assuming that they are quoting Wikipedia at you because they are ignorant. Maybe they know the possibility reliability issues and are quoting it anyway because in their opinion it's still valid (this is my own opinions, and the opinion of many scholars in their fields about Wikipedia -- still a valid resource -- NOT something verboten to use in any debate: only FORMAL RESEARCH).
BTW I quote Wikipedia at people in online arguments all the time; and they can't find a counterquote, and I win the argument. Nothing wrong with that at all. And Wikipedia trumps the credibility of most other online sources available to people so it's not only a good weapon, it's a heavy hitter.
> 'Wikipedia is not authoritative' has so run its course that everybody knows this already
A fair amount of people, esp. among the youngsters, think that WP is authoritative. Take, for example, the amount of quotes of WP, in nearly every online medium, used to "make" a point. First of all, Wikipedia not being authoritative has nothing to do with whether it can be quoted to make a point. What's the relationship between those two uses? The Encyclopedia Britannica is not 'authoritative' either. Neither is a newspaper. Would you refuse to quote these to make a point?
People will generally use anything to win a forum scrap -- it doesn't mean that they are ignorant of the nature of the sources.
And besides, my observation has been the exact opposite to yours. Younger people are far more aware *as a group* of the idea that Wiki is unsuitable for research than older people (older people are more likely not to have heard of it or have only heard the word without any opinions as to its usage). The reason is that this lesson is now being hammered into them in schools at every grade, and has been for some time. (You may not have been aware of this.) Nobody gets out of school these days without being recited this litany literally dozens of times. They may not practice what they've been preached, but believe me -- they know.
Too bad you're using a straw man attack on someone. Just because he's nuts, doesn't mean everything he says is false. Which is why I've never been able to understand that although granted, I am weak and somewhat short, and can only make like 1 out of 10 baskets, I *do* occasionally make baskets.
So why aren't I in the NBA? It's that damn straw man attack, I tell you.
Wikipedia doesn't claim the authority that you are attempting to revoke from it. And the meme that 'Wikipedia is not authoritative' has so run its course that everybody knows this already and takes it as read -- even 5th graders. Using this sentence to thump anyone who expresses the least protective interest in Wiki is... well, it's just over, is all. It's time to get past what the Wikipedia is not.
And more importantly, the level of Wikipedia authority (whether high or low) is beside the point here. 99% of forms of newsgathering are non-authoritative by your definition -- are all of these fair game for twisting and warping by intellience agencies? And we should not be worried? Because they are not authoritative? There is an obvious problem with this philosophy.
We should not be only interested in protecting ourselves so narrowly. Regardless of whether or not Wikipedia is authoritative, it *is* a valuable resource, and it gets less valuable everytime another tax dollar of yours is spent to falsify it.
Years after most people had figured out that the Internet wasn't a virtual world, the idiot media was still going on about "cyberspace". So somebody figured out that if you actually developed the product that the idiot media imagined, you'd get loads of free PR. It doesn't matter that the product is useless. So then... I guess the hype about the internet was way better than the reality. Oh, and that opinion itself is just hype....since the hyped version is actually way worse than the reality... or something? Trying to make sense of your reasoning here turns me in circles, because you see it's impossible for me to believe that a software idea that could capture the imagination of the whole online planet and yet not have any uses.
So writers are supposed to predict this happening now, and cull from their work usages that Slashdot readers might find objectionable? No. But it does mean that the wording is unfortunate to those of us who are most familiar with the tech usage. Having fun putting words in my mouth? Well, I have no intention of getting ugly about it, but you criticised the author's word choice. For not predicting that it would be on Slashdot. If you were to apply this ethic to everyone, you get exactly the situation I just described.
generally it refers to a 'friendly' overture that is a disguise for attack or competition. Out of curiousity, how do you interpret TiVo as an overture to the cable companies in any way, shape, or form? Please, explain. The cable companies are ancillary to the parties TiVo is reaching out to (the viewers). *I* don't interpret it that way. But *my* interpretation was not the one to which I just referred, was it? From the second sentence of TFA: "This week, the company that has amassed such powerful brand equity that it has become a verb ("Did you TiVo The Sopranos finale?") announced that it is working hard to convince the cable industry that it's a friend, not a foe." So clearly, this is exactly the way the author interprets it, and in fact that is the premise of the whole article. You can certainly argue with that premise, and I wouldn't really disagree with you, but you can't argue that the word choice dooesn't fit the argument being made.
Anyway, don't know how I got sucked into this pointlessly trivial debate, and you're getting a little snarky, which is a strong sign that a whole lot more time is about to be wasted. It's not really important, obviously. If you really feel you must save face here, then have at thee. I won't be mounting another defence.
Vocabulary used should be targeted to your intended audience. I don't think the writer of TFA was writing for a tech audience, but as it ended up on a tech aggregator... So writers are supposed to predict this happening now, and cull from their work usages that Slashdot readers might find objectionable?
Besides, even with the original usage of Trojan horse, it doesn't quite fit. It's not like TiVo is a gift to the cable companies that hides the source of their downfall. Actually, it does. The phrase 'Trojan horse' was never used quite so literally just to refer to an actual object freely given -- generally it refers to a 'friendly' overture that is a disguise for attack or competition. Millions of modern users of this phrase carry far more weight than the slightlty more specific original reference. Merriam-Webster agrees: "Trojan horse: someone or something intended to defeat or subvert from within usually by deceptive means". And this does seem to describe quite well the new TiVo strategy as interpreted by this columnist elsewhere in the article.
That's a really unfortunate turn-of-phrase. Is the writer aware of what Trojan horses are in the tech world? I think most writers (and people in general) would rather that we didn't outlaw the former meanings of words that get stuffed into the massive insatiable maw of computer jargon.
...I have done a bit of research into all of the "documented objections to process and procedure" which have ever been initiated by interns... I think you've neglected to include the objection from Monica Lewinsky That's a helluva way to spell 'Linda Tripp'!
This guy is an intern. Know what that is? Hint: for an intern, there is no 'not accepting the assignment'. Might as well say nothing and just stay home, instead, because that's about to be your 'new assignment', anyway...
Intern: "I know that I have no experience and no battle-tested skills, but I'm afraid I must disagree with the way you're running this company. My recommendation is to--"
Boss: "Excuse me, but do you work here?"
Intern: "Uh, yeah. Summer program."
Boss: "Well, this year, Fall's comin' early!"
It is to laugh. But seriously, in the service of battling this apparently massive epidemic of worldwide intern negligence, I have done a bit of research into all of the "documented objections to process and procedure" which have ever been initiated by interns, throughout all of time and space. Here's the complete list...
Didja miss it? Sad state of affairs, wouldn't you say? Which begs the question: WHY are America's interns so incompetent? We need to train our interns! In fact, somebody should start some sort of training program with this very thing as its goal. Why even stop there? Why not a training program at every company? America needs to get its act together, because education is everything.
[quote]BusinessWeek seems to be encouraging Microsoft to aid and abet a criminal enterprise (piracy).[/quote]
Sure, except that it's impossible to aid and abet somebody to commit a crime against yourself. For example, if you aided and abetted somebody to steal your refrigerator, guess what? It isn't a crime anymore. It's a gift. Therefore, you haven't 'aided and abetted' anything. Therefore, BusinessWeek hasn't encouraged any aiding and abetting, since said aiding and abetting did not happen.
>>> However, if they claimed they feel instant pain the minute the transmitter kicks on, they're probably lying.
>> LYING? See... ignorance like yours is the reason people don't want to believe that their illness is psychosomatic.
>His "ignorance" as you put it his nothing to do with it. People don't want to believe their illness is psychosomatic because they don't like being told they are wrong and idiot-minded for believing ridiculous things without a shred of evidence.
I notice that your argument still doesn't cast anyone as a LIAR. Therefore, my objection stands. Nobody is LYING here. And it's attitudes like that which put a stigma on psychological disorders.
Well, as I say, good luck. Maybe whatever it is specific to the other building. Sorry, I am still not going to believe that anything in general use that does actually emit gamma rays or other high-powered forms of radiation is going to give 7 people cancer in a year! I am not a doctor, but have looked into cancer quite a bit. This just isn't the way this disease works. Cancer is simply the result of cell repair going astray -- that's all it is! Every few million cell divisions (and cell divisions are how damaged cells are replaced) there is one that happens incorrectly or starts from a damaged source. Most of these wrong results are just identified, killed, and absorbed. You probably have several of them every day. But every once in a while PURELY BY ACCIDENT (and not as a direct result of the type of damaging agent), the misreplication occurs in such a way that a 'monster' is created -- meaning, a cell that divides out of control and faster than the body's defences can kill the bad clones.
Thus, cancer is always and only the result of generalised cell damage. Elements that damage the same exact set of cells repeatedly, chronically, over a LONG period of time, are the ones that end up being labelled as 'cancerous', since they stress your body's local defences to the point where cancer becomes way more likely. (The random nature of it also explains why there are always a few people who seem to engage in any 'cancerous' activities all the way to ripe old age.)
So, anything that damages your cells can probably also damage your DNA and has a chance of giving you cancer. And in fact, there is no other way than that for you get cancer -- that is all cancer is. Therefore, it is impossible for something to give you cancer that quickly without massive amounts of collateral damage. You would know it. Not after a year. You would know it right away. It wouldn't be silent.
I really don't know if there is a low-level long-term cancer danger from cell towers, but I DO know that there isn't a high-level short-term cancer danger from them, because this just doesn't fit in with the facts of the world, my friend. You might as well be trying to tell me that the cell tower gave them cancer in a single day -- and I'd be as likely to believe it.
Anyway, considering your long history at that abode, I can understand your reluctance to move and your opinion that it's currently safe. It's extremely worrying to me however that the people who actually live in that building are working on a certainly wrong theory about what made them sick. This is perfectly illustrative why pseudoscientific activist web pages and info stoking mythic fears about the modern lifestyle based on no actual science are not just harmless rants. They are dangerous.
Why not just assume that it could either the cell phone tower or something else in the environment, admit that you don't know for sure. (You can admit that, right?) And then make the logical conclusion that the best course of action is to ASSUME THE WORST (right?), and the worst case scenario is NOT that a cell tower gave your neighbours cancer. The worst case scenario is that it's something else that you don't know about, yet, and that you have misidentfied the source. Therefore, regardless of what you *suspect* happened, you should MOVE OUT ANYWAY. Move to somewhere else with no cell towers if it pleases you. If your guiding principle really is, as you say, to take no chances in matters of life and death, then this is STILL the most logical course of action.
But if you prefer to rest on your own assumption of right thinking, then I would have to conclude that being right is more important to you than being safe.
Lawsuits have nothing to do with science and little to do with the truth. Haven't you learned that yet?
Look, obviously you are determined to believe that something impossible caused cancer in your neighbourhood instead of dismissing it rationally and worrying about the real culprit. I've tried to help you by making it clear to you that you have identified the wrong source of danger in your environment. Done my best, but now it's over. Sooner or later, persuasion fails and Darwin takes over. Good luck. I hope that either (a) it's just a statistical anomaly (which as others have pointed out, is perfectly possible -- unlikely, yes, but way MORE possible than a bunch of cancers from a single cell tower in a single year), or (b) that you get lucky.
Take care, true believer.
You ever hear the aphorism, when you've ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
It's impossible for that cell mast to have caused cancer in 7 people within one year, man. Period. Even the most evil cancer-causing substances that we have ever tried to expose ourselves to intentionally, the ones that nobody disputed were cancer-causing, and were withdrawn from the market quickly, EVEN THEY for the most part could not cause cancer in anything close to a year.
So, consider your two alternatives: one theory, in which something clearly impossible must have happened, or another theory, in which there is some other unknown element causing cancer in that building. You can't possibly be about to tell me that you have exhaustively checked everything and are certain there are no other cancerous agents in that environment. Therefore, your assertion that there are no other such substances is speculation. Compare that to your alternative theory, which clearly contradicts everything we know about not only cell technology, but about cancer, too.
It's quite clear which theory is on far weaker ground, here. Where you went wrong is in assuming that you had all the information at your disposal to decide what caused the rash the cancers, and then just picking the most suspicious-looking element you *know* about. That isn't the way the world works. In science, things you don't know about can kill you, too.
Which is why you should get out of that neighbourhood.
You know, there are other things that really do cause cancer, *many* of which can still be found in older buildings, or in extremely cheaply built tenements (just because there are rules, doesn't mean they were followed). If 7 people in my apartment building died of cancer in a single year, I would DEFINITELY MOVE OUT! But I wouldn't blame it on whatever was installed a year ago, because cancer from most low-level pollutants takes YEARS (usually well more than a decade) to occur. In fact, if cell mast exposure could cause cancer in anyone within ONE YEAR, it would be one of the most cancerous substances in our environment today, more provably dangerous than smoking, smog, DDT, and asbestos put together!
Even if cell mast radiation is dangerous, it is obviously not very *provably* dangerous, or it would have been proven almost immediately in the dozens of studies we have seen from various sources -- and there would be at least a few studies that were extremely alarming. (Just like smoking, DDT, and asbestos, and also smog BTW although we do nothing about it.) Cell phone research has come nowhere near these other substances in their conclusions.
In other words, your rationalisation for what happened in your apartment building can't possibly fly. But you should still get out, because unless it's the most populous apartment building I've ever seen, 7 cancers in one year is a huge anomaly, and a strong sign that everyone there has been exposed to something for many, many years. (And guess who has been exposed the longest? Probably the building administrators, who were among the ill.)
Get out of this apartment. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
You can always install a LINUX compatibility layer into FreeBSD, in fact it's a standard option. Advantages: Working with FreeBSD will prepare you somewhat better for digging around inside the guts of OS X. Your platform is even more obscure than LINUX, which can stop a few attacks on your servers. Disadvantages: [insert academic kernel arguments here] [insert academic licensing debate here]
To agree with parent, but with a bit more politesse, insulting people and organisations is not only criticism, but it's one of the most effective forms of public criticism known to man -- which is, of course, why the NZ gov't seeks to control it. Think about why they want image satire not to happen, and you will have your answer as to why the critics love to use it: IT WORKS! The government has all the tools at its disposal to influence the public. Satire is one of the few tools the public has that is actually strong enough to fight back. Start to place controls on it, and indeed what you have is censorship that is against the public good.
Wikipedia doesn't claim the authority that you are attempting to revoke from it. And the meme that 'Wikipedia is not authoritative' has so run its course that everybody knows this already and takes it as read -- even 5th graders. Using this sentence to thump anyone who expresses the least protective interest in Wiki is ... well, it's just over, is all. It's time to get past what the Wikipedia is not.
And more importantly, the level of Wikipedia authority (whether high or low) is beside the point here. 99% of forms of newsgathering are non-authoritative by your definition -- are all of these fair game for twisting and warping by intellience agencies? And we should not be worried? Because they are not authoritative? There is an obvious problem with this philosophy.
We should not be only interested in protecting ourselves so narrowly. Regardless of whether or not Wikipedia is authoritative, it *is* a valuable resource, and it gets less valuable everytime another tax dollar of yours is spent to falsify it.
Second paragraph I meant. Bye!
...I have done a bit of research into all of the "documented objections to process and procedure" which have ever been initiated by interns... I think you've neglected to include the objection from Monica Lewinsky That's a helluva way to spell 'Linda Tripp'!This guy is an intern. Know what that is? Hint: for an intern, there is no 'not accepting the assignment'. Might as well say nothing and just stay home, instead, because that's about to be your 'new assignment', anyway...
Intern: "I know that I have no experience and no battle-tested skills, but I'm afraid I must disagree with the way you're running this company. My recommendation is to--"
Boss: "Excuse me, but do you work here?"
Intern: "Uh, yeah. Summer program."
Boss: "Well, this year, Fall's comin' early!"
It is to laugh. But seriously, in the service of battling this apparently massive epidemic of worldwide intern negligence, I have done a bit of research into all of the "documented objections to process and procedure" which have ever been initiated by interns, throughout all of time and space. Here's the complete list...
Didja miss it? Sad state of affairs, wouldn't you say? Which begs the question: WHY are America's interns so incompetent? We need to train our interns! In fact, somebody should start some sort of training program with this very thing as its goal. Why even stop there? Why not a training program at every company? America needs to get its act together, because education is everything.
[quote]BusinessWeek seems to be encouraging Microsoft to aid and abet a criminal enterprise (piracy).[/quote] Sure, except that it's impossible to aid and abet somebody to commit a crime against yourself. For example, if you aided and abetted somebody to steal your refrigerator, guess what? It isn't a crime anymore. It's a gift. Therefore, you haven't 'aided and abetted' anything. Therefore, BusinessWeek hasn't encouraged any aiding and abetting, since said aiding and abetting did not happen.
Er ... bad quoting, sorry. My latest contribution begins with the words 'I notice your argument...'
>>> However, if they claimed they feel instant pain the minute the transmitter kicks on, they're probably lying. >> LYING? See ... ignorance like yours is the reason people don't want to believe that their illness is psychosomatic.
>His "ignorance" as you put it his nothing to do with it. People don't want to believe their illness is psychosomatic because they don't like being told they are wrong and idiot-minded for believing ridiculous things without a shred of evidence.
I notice that your argument still doesn't cast anyone as a LIAR. Therefore, my objection stands. Nobody is LYING here. And it's attitudes like that which put a stigma on psychological disorders.
I meant to write DOES NOT emit gamma rays, hopefully that was clear from the context, but just in case.
Well, as I say, good luck. Maybe whatever it is specific to the other building. Sorry, I am still not going to believe that anything in general use that does actually emit gamma rays or other high-powered forms of radiation is going to give 7 people cancer in a year! I am not a doctor, but have looked into cancer quite a bit. This just isn't the way this disease works. Cancer is simply the result of cell repair going astray -- that's all it is! Every few million cell divisions (and cell divisions are how damaged cells are replaced) there is one that happens incorrectly or starts from a damaged source. Most of these wrong results are just identified, killed, and absorbed. You probably have several of them every day. But every once in a while PURELY BY ACCIDENT (and not as a direct result of the type of damaging agent), the misreplication occurs in such a way that a 'monster' is created -- meaning, a cell that divides out of control and faster than the body's defences can kill the bad clones. Thus, cancer is always and only the result of generalised cell damage. Elements that damage the same exact set of cells repeatedly, chronically, over a LONG period of time, are the ones that end up being labelled as 'cancerous', since they stress your body's local defences to the point where cancer becomes way more likely. (The random nature of it also explains why there are always a few people who seem to engage in any 'cancerous' activities all the way to ripe old age.) So, anything that damages your cells can probably also damage your DNA and has a chance of giving you cancer. And in fact, there is no other way than that for you get cancer -- that is all cancer is. Therefore, it is impossible for something to give you cancer that quickly without massive amounts of collateral damage. You would know it. Not after a year. You would know it right away. It wouldn't be silent. I really don't know if there is a low-level long-term cancer danger from cell towers, but I DO know that there isn't a high-level short-term cancer danger from them, because this just doesn't fit in with the facts of the world, my friend. You might as well be trying to tell me that the cell tower gave them cancer in a single day -- and I'd be as likely to believe it. Anyway, considering your long history at that abode, I can understand your reluctance to move and your opinion that it's currently safe. It's extremely worrying to me however that the people who actually live in that building are working on a certainly wrong theory about what made them sick. This is perfectly illustrative why pseudoscientific activist web pages and info stoking mythic fears about the modern lifestyle based on no actual science are not just harmless rants. They are dangerous.
Why not just assume that it could either the cell phone tower or something else in the environment, admit that you don't know for sure. (You can admit that, right?) And then make the logical conclusion that the best course of action is to ASSUME THE WORST (right?), and the worst case scenario is NOT that a cell tower gave your neighbours cancer. The worst case scenario is that it's something else that you don't know about, yet, and that you have misidentfied the source. Therefore, regardless of what you *suspect* happened, you should MOVE OUT ANYWAY. Move to somewhere else with no cell towers if it pleases you. If your guiding principle really is, as you say, to take no chances in matters of life and death, then this is STILL the most logical course of action. But if you prefer to rest on your own assumption of right thinking, then I would have to conclude that being right is more important to you than being safe.
Lawsuits have nothing to do with science and little to do with the truth. Haven't you learned that yet? Look, obviously you are determined to believe that something impossible caused cancer in your neighbourhood instead of dismissing it rationally and worrying about the real culprit. I've tried to help you by making it clear to you that you have identified the wrong source of danger in your environment. Done my best, but now it's over. Sooner or later, persuasion fails and Darwin takes over. Good luck. I hope that either (a) it's just a statistical anomaly (which as others have pointed out, is perfectly possible -- unlikely, yes, but way MORE possible than a bunch of cancers from a single cell tower in a single year), or (b) that you get lucky. Take care, true believer.
You ever hear the aphorism, when you've ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? It's impossible for that cell mast to have caused cancer in 7 people within one year, man. Period. Even the most evil cancer-causing substances that we have ever tried to expose ourselves to intentionally, the ones that nobody disputed were cancer-causing, and were withdrawn from the market quickly, EVEN THEY for the most part could not cause cancer in anything close to a year. So, consider your two alternatives: one theory, in which something clearly impossible must have happened, or another theory, in which there is some other unknown element causing cancer in that building. You can't possibly be about to tell me that you have exhaustively checked everything and are certain there are no other cancerous agents in that environment. Therefore, your assertion that there are no other such substances is speculation. Compare that to your alternative theory, which clearly contradicts everything we know about not only cell technology, but about cancer, too. It's quite clear which theory is on far weaker ground, here. Where you went wrong is in assuming that you had all the information at your disposal to decide what caused the rash the cancers, and then just picking the most suspicious-looking element you *know* about. That isn't the way the world works. In science, things you don't know about can kill you, too. Which is why you should get out of that neighbourhood.
Oh. Sorry. You don't live in the apartment. It's 200m, away, duh. Still, too close for comfort. Move. And don't worry about the cell masts.
You know, there are other things that really do cause cancer, *many* of which can still be found in older buildings, or in extremely cheaply built tenements (just because there are rules, doesn't mean they were followed). If 7 people in my apartment building died of cancer in a single year, I would DEFINITELY MOVE OUT! But I wouldn't blame it on whatever was installed a year ago, because cancer from most low-level pollutants takes YEARS (usually well more than a decade) to occur. In fact, if cell mast exposure could cause cancer in anyone within ONE YEAR, it would be one of the most cancerous substances in our environment today, more provably dangerous than smoking, smog, DDT, and asbestos put together! Even if cell mast radiation is dangerous, it is obviously not very *provably* dangerous, or it would have been proven almost immediately in the dozens of studies we have seen from various sources -- and there would be at least a few studies that were extremely alarming. (Just like smoking, DDT, and asbestos, and also smog BTW although we do nothing about it.) Cell phone research has come nowhere near these other substances in their conclusions. In other words, your rationalisation for what happened in your apartment building can't possibly fly. But you should still get out, because unless it's the most populous apartment building I've ever seen, 7 cancers in one year is a huge anomaly, and a strong sign that everyone there has been exposed to something for many, many years. (And guess who has been exposed the longest? Probably the building administrators, who were among the ill.) Get out of this apartment. Period.