He's confusing a "method", eg: "LTE", with a "frequency band", eg: "1.4-2.4 kilohz". If I yanked out and replaced the radio transmitter/receivers on a wifi access point and card, I could transmit wifi signals on the same band as my local NPR station. It would still be "wireless ethernet" in it's implementation, but it would be on different frequencies. It would also be illegal in any country that regulates its frequency bands (pretty much all developed and many less developed countries do this). Lightsquared is planning to use the same LTE protocol as is currently in use in both Europe and the US, but it was planning to do so on a frequency band that neither Europe or the US would normally permit terrestrial transmission system on.
We call it "zoning" but it's essentially the same thing. If you buy residential zoned property with the intent to get it rezoned as industrial you are pretty likely to have:
a) Very ticked off neighbors and b) A very unfriendly local government.
You can make it work: if the locality is desperate enough, you make enough promises to the neighbors, you buy up enough adjacent property, etc... but it's a risky operation.
I don't know. He seems like a nice kid. I don't like his music, but that doesn't mean I can never like any of his future music. I'm no huge fan of Lady Gaga, but after being essentially forced to watch her Thanksgiving special I have to admit the woman can, in fact, sing. Seeing her do Jazz standards in fairly normal clothing made me realize that there's a lot more to her than loud noises and obnoxious stunts. If she could be convinced to do more stuff like that, I could be convinced to buy some of her music. Similarly I could envision a future in which Justin Bieber released music I'd be willing to listen too. He just hasn't done so yet.
Turing, specifically, was killed by his own government for a crime that most people wouldn't even consider a matter for concern now, just a half dozen decades later. We see him as a "cool people": then he was was an unusually bright man who did some interesting research; but was tragically social maladjusted. This is true to a greater or lesser extent of all the "cool people" from the past. Einstein was a minor celebrity, but then so are Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings. Most of the "cool people" of our time won't be recognized as such until {20,30,50} years from now. It's the nature of the beast, you never know who the really important contributors are until you can look back in retrospect.
The same is true in any field. Elvis, The Beatles, The Back Street Boys, Justin Bieber: four groups/singers that all held essentially the same role in four different eras. They were all teeny-heart-throb muscians, who were more popular than anyone but God for a length of time. In retrospect the Beatles were probably the most enduringly popular, Elvis was probably the most "important" (in the sense that he truly changed the music world), the Back Street Boys were nothing but a pointless fad, and who knows about Bieber. He's still a kid. He could be a flash in the pan like the BSB, develop into a musician with real staying power like the Beatles... He could even change the music world one day. 50 years from now people could talk about him like they do Bach, or never know who he was.
In the US we have machines that for a small fee (like seven or eight percent of the transaction) will take bucket loads of change, sort it, count it, and give you bills. Most people I know put all their change into a jar or vase or something and take it to the machines every few months or a year. My wife an had a huge jar of change that we'd been saving for a few years that we turned into like $200 or so when we moved last, paid for most of the ancillary expenses. Maybe if you hop across to a Euro based country they have something similar?
If that is a verifiable, true, fact then the doctor would be a fool to allow you to take a vaccine. There are exception to vaccine guidelines to account for people with weak immune systems, allergies, etc. People like you and your children should hope that people like me get all of our vaccines and keep them up to date. Our herd immunity protects you. When people like me, and the vast majority of the population for whom there is no health risk to vaccination, avoid getting vaccinated we are hurting you. There are exceptions to every rule, and people with allergies and reduced immune systems are the exception to the "everyone should be vaccinated" rule. This article isn't about people who refuse vaccines for legitimate reasons.
Actually GPS knew there was a regulatory requirement for "nothing but tumbleweeds" and designed their systems according to said regulatory requirement. The adjacent spectrum was also marked for satellite transmission. There was no reason for GPS manufacturers to assume that suddenly there would be powerful terrestrial transmitters sitting next door, as they were told the adjacent frequency bands would be used for similar low power signals.
Imagine you need to build a very loud factory. You go buy a parcel of land zoned for manufacturing, surrounded by other parcels of land also zones for manufacturing. You don't use a lot of sound dampening material, because, hey, he other loud factory owners in the are don't care much. You run your factory for a decade when a developer buys the parcel of land next door. Suddenly the developer is trying to get teh land rezoned as residential and they and their customers are complaining that your factory is too loud. Should you, sitting on your manufacturing zone land, following the rules established for property zoned the way yours is, suddenly have to install a bunch of filters because some dude bought a bunch of cheap land is is trying an end run around the regulations that made it cheap in the first place?
I reviewed The End of History for my Historiography final in University. It was... awful really. I found his ideas simplistic and his proofs rather poor. I'd read student papers that I found more convincing. I honestly cannot believe that it got as much attention as it did. I was also pretty depressed that I didn't get to do Fredrick Jackson Turner or someone at least vaguely interesting. On the bright side, I got to be pretty snarky in a high level university history paper and still got an "A".
Didn't we just read a story yesterday that indicated some fairly substantial increases in overall research funding? It seems to me that this indicates a preference for certain research programs over others, not "a political lack of valuing science in America." I mean, you can quibble about which programs got the axe, or say that the overall raises in funding were insufficient, but to point at one research project among the hundreds or thousands that the federal government funds; and use that alone as evidence for a failure in will hardly seems reasonable. It sounds to me more like "My favorite program got cut! Americas hates teh sciences!!!1!one!"
Well, there are two facts to consider here: 1) I don't actually know what the value of $unpleasant act is. Context in the article and other comments leads me to think that it's rather less mundane than normal homosexual acts, though maybe that's all it is. I can't look at the moment, I'm at work. 2) I was basing my definition of "unpleasant" on how the campaign would see things, not my personal view. I don't really care where people choose to poke or be poked as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
I think, if I were the Santorum Campaign, that I'd be far less worried about the fact that some smartass linked the candidate's name with $upleasantact, than that apparently this linkage is apparently far more popular than my official campaign pages. Google results report, essentially, what is there, not what we want to be there. Apparently Sanatorum's Internet presence is so extensive and effective that a random parody get's more links that his actual site.
He has somewhat unrealistic expectations perhaps, but if it really bothers him and he isn't foolish enough to just quit his old job and get food stamps or something, why do you care? Yes, the economy is kinda crummy (getting better, but certainly not there yet), but you know what? I could have a new job in a month if I wanted. Crummy economy in general doesn't mean that a specific person with specific skills can't find a new job. At least in the Northeast, senior level Unix geeks (both admins and programmers) are in high demand. I was able to get my current job (north of Boston) in about three months of trying and I was job seeking from Alabama.
If he's a fairly skilled and experienced Unix geek then he can probably expect to find something pretty quickly. If not, he'll discover that changing jobs isn't as easy and he hoped and hopefully won't be so foolish as to have already quit his current gig.
As to the OP's original question: My personal experience is that unless you go to work for Red Hat or similar you're going to have a Hell of time finding and "Open Source job". While more and more companies are using OSS software for various things, precious frew of them use OSS softwaer exclusively. In my current gig I manage Linux servers and workstations for a a dev team that produces a Linux based product for our company, but most of the corporate infrastructure stuff is still Microsoft. My previous job was managing Unix HPC stuff for the government, but again the desktops were mostly Microsoft. Before that I was an HPC admin for a university, and again, desktop machines were Windows or Mac. Lots of Jobs for people with experience developing on, in, or taking care of OSS systems; many fewer that don't require at least some knowledge and/or and willingness to use MS systems at the same time.
That's easy to say, but when you're in any kind of regulated industry you often can't. Usually industries like energy, health care, finance, and government contracting have a limited number of devices that they're allowed to use. They could provide you a list and let you purchase one from the list, but they usually prefer just to purchase and issue phones they they know are allowed. Some also reduce the choices further to simply support. It's not always about you...
I wasn't directly involved in the site security certification stuff, but the Contractor I used to work for was doing test runs on iPhones as corporate communications devices when I left 5 months ago; and my wife's boss at Raytheon was debating an iPhone or BB as her new work phone a month or so ago. They must have gotten certified sometime in the last 6-8 months.
Add me to the pile of "I find virtual keyboards easier than the little ones on a Blackberry" people. I was using a coworkers BB a few days ago to text with another coworker who's number I didn't have. I wanted to throw the thing against a wall. It was awful to type on that tiny little chiclet keyboard, I am at least twice as fast on my iPhone or friends Android devices with virtual keyboards. It's all about what you're used too.
As a fairly liberal hippy type person, I have to say he's still pretty much right. You can't just say "Halliburton has done evil things, therefore all things done by Halliburton are evil". I disagree with a lot of things about the company, and I take anything they say with a grain of salt, but I seriously doubt they have "Chief Evil Officer" who's job it is to double check all corporate actions and make sure they meet the necessary standard of evil. Most likely enough people complained about Blackberry that IT decided to switch platforms. It's news because it shows that RIM is seriously hemorrhaging big customers. If they can't hold onto the Halliburtons, they're in even worse shape than a lot of people thought. I believe it was just a week or so ago that I was responding to a post about how "regulate" industries were never going to move to IPhone just because some dirty users wanted to... Well, yeah...
Age of consents vary, they tend toward the beginning of puberty in premodern cultures, owing largely to a relative short fertile period for women and a desire for relatively large families (due to high infant mortality rates); and the end of puberty in more modern cultures owing to our ability and willingness to keep our kids "children" longer. That's not the point. The point is that every culture I know of, and I've studied a fair few from medieval Europe and Asia to various Amerindian tribal cultures, have a line beneath which is "child-do not touch". Even in the upper aristocracy of Europe, where marriages of or to children were moderately common for dynastic reasons, the marriage couldn't be consummated until the younger of the pair was pubescent and considered an "adult".
Pedophilia will never become legal or accepted, what constitutes pedophilia may change based on cultural norms about maturity. It's highly unlikely that any society will ever consider it acceptable to have sex with anyone who has not at least begun the physical process of puberty. Societies where even that is acceptable nearly always consider puberty "adulthood", and prepare children for the responsibilities thereof as much as possible.
The question of what defines "child" is a somewhat arbitrary and cultural one. The question whether a child is able to give consent is not. culturally we may not agree on whether adulthood start at the beginning or the end of puberty on at exactly what age a boy becomes a man or a girl a woman, but no one pretends that a five old can make informed decisions. You're arguing semantics.
For more than a few people, most likely. Britain alone has a reasonably complete record of courts, laws and trials going back some thousand years or so, and for huge swathes of that crimes which we would now consider absurd were regularly prosecuted. Witchcraft, homosexuality, minor debts, "treasonous" activities that basically amount to free speech issues: just a small partial list of activities that could have gotten a person imprisoned or even executed at various time in British history... just the cases that are on record probably number in the hundreds of thousands.
Unlikely. As has been pointed out in about a thousand places every time there a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia, two homosexual men (or women) are adults capable of informed consent. A child is not and never will be able to provide informed consent, so there is unlikely to ever be a situation where children are seen as acceptable sexual partners. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality unless you accept that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Anyone who has ever had sex with another consenting adult outside of marriage and without the purpose of reproduction has done the functional equivalent of homosexual sex. Only rapists have done the function equivalent of child sex.
I suppose I should have been more specific. Certainly there are form of cancer, or stages of cancer, where accepting treatment is simply an uncomfortable way to prolong the inevitable. The implication in the GGP though is that his mother is deliberately avoiding doctors and potential diagnosis, because she intends to refuse treatment under almost any circumstances. It's one thing to rationally look at your options, realize that you have stage four small cell lung cancer, and extending your life for a few months of pain isn't worth it. It's another thing altogether to just ignore your health because you assume that whatever you get won't be treatable. Many, many people survive cancer. Many people don't, and when or if the diagnosis comes I completely agree that you should make rational choices based on likely prognosis; but at least get the checks and understand your options.
I don't mean to pry, but why on Earth would your mother refuse chemo? These days most cancers (not all, by any means, but most) are extremely treatable and survivable if caught early. It's unpleasant for a few months, but with a few exception you'll mostly always survive and be fine. It's not like it was 30 years ago where you were looking at 50-50 odds at best and the treatment was worse than the disease. I personally know literally half a dozen cancer survivors just among my family and people that I am close enough to to know their medical history. Most are as fit and active as ever now.
This was already said and responded to. Apparently the material is (obviously) not mathematically two dimensional, but there's also a physical concept of 2D which involves a material having reached its absolute minimum thinness. The molecules in glass are three atoms thick, therefore the thinnest possible glass is three atoms thick. According to the physical definition of 2D, this material is.
My wife dropped hers from chest height, (Probably around 4 feet, she's a fairly tall woman) onto a a train track rail. We were fully expecting to have our next stop be the AT&T store, but the phone was completely undamaged. I'm not saying they're indestructible, but they seem study enough for day to day use.
Slashdot Mirror
He's confusing a "method", eg: "LTE", with a "frequency band", eg: "1.4-2.4 kilohz". If I yanked out and replaced the radio transmitter/receivers on a wifi access point and card, I could transmit wifi signals on the same band as my local NPR station. It would still be "wireless ethernet" in it's implementation, but it would be on different frequencies. It would also be illegal in any country that regulates its frequency bands (pretty much all developed and many less developed countries do this). Lightsquared is planning to use the same LTE protocol as is currently in use in both Europe and the US, but it was planning to do so on a frequency band that neither Europe or the US would normally permit terrestrial transmission system on.
We call it "zoning" but it's essentially the same thing. If you buy residential zoned property with the intent to get it rezoned as industrial you are pretty likely to have:
a) Very ticked off neighbors and
b) A very unfriendly local government.
You can make it work: if the locality is desperate enough, you make enough promises to the neighbors, you buy up enough adjacent property, etc... but it's a risky operation.
I don't know. He seems like a nice kid. I don't like his music, but that doesn't mean I can never like any of his future music. I'm no huge fan of Lady Gaga, but after being essentially forced to watch her Thanksgiving special I have to admit the woman can, in fact, sing. Seeing her do Jazz standards in fairly normal clothing made me realize that there's a lot more to her than loud noises and obnoxious stunts. If she could be convinced to do more stuff like that, I could be convinced to buy some of her music. Similarly I could envision a future in which Justin Bieber released music I'd be willing to listen too. He just hasn't done so yet.
Turing, specifically, was killed by his own government for a crime that most people wouldn't even consider a matter for concern now, just a half dozen decades later. We see him as a "cool people": then he was was an unusually bright man who did some interesting research; but was tragically social maladjusted. This is true to a greater or lesser extent of all the "cool people" from the past. Einstein was a minor celebrity, but then so are Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings. Most of the "cool people" of our time won't be recognized as such until {20,30,50} years from now. It's the nature of the beast, you never know who the really important contributors are until you can look back in retrospect.
The same is true in any field. Elvis, The Beatles, The Back Street Boys, Justin Bieber: four groups/singers that all held essentially the same role in four different eras. They were all teeny-heart-throb muscians, who were more popular than anyone but God for a length of time. In retrospect the Beatles were probably the most enduringly popular, Elvis was probably the most "important" (in the sense that he truly changed the music world), the Back Street Boys were nothing but a pointless fad, and who knows about Bieber. He's still a kid. He could be a flash in the pan like the BSB, develop into a musician with real staying power like the Beatles... He could even change the music world one day. 50 years from now people could talk about him like they do Bach, or never know who he was.
In the US we have machines that for a small fee (like seven or eight percent of the transaction) will take bucket loads of change, sort it, count it, and give you bills. Most people I know put all their change into a jar or vase or something and take it to the machines every few months or a year. My wife an had a huge jar of change that we'd been saving for a few years that we turned into like $200 or so when we moved last, paid for most of the ancillary expenses. Maybe if you hop across to a Euro based country they have something similar?
If that is a verifiable, true, fact then the doctor would be a fool to allow you to take a vaccine. There are exception to vaccine guidelines to account for people with weak immune systems, allergies, etc. People like you and your children should hope that people like me get all of our vaccines and keep them up to date. Our herd immunity protects you. When people like me, and the vast majority of the population for whom there is no health risk to vaccination, avoid getting vaccinated we are hurting you. There are exceptions to every rule, and people with allergies and reduced immune systems are the exception to the "everyone should be vaccinated" rule. This article isn't about people who refuse vaccines for legitimate reasons.
Actually GPS knew there was a regulatory requirement for "nothing but tumbleweeds" and designed their systems according to said regulatory requirement. The adjacent spectrum was also marked for satellite transmission. There was no reason for GPS manufacturers to assume that suddenly there would be powerful terrestrial transmitters sitting next door, as they were told the adjacent frequency bands would be used for similar low power signals.
Imagine you need to build a very loud factory. You go buy a parcel of land zoned for manufacturing, surrounded by other parcels of land also zones for manufacturing. You don't use a lot of sound dampening material, because, hey, he other loud factory owners in the are don't care much. You run your factory for a decade when a developer buys the parcel of land next door. Suddenly the developer is trying to get teh land rezoned as residential and they and their customers are complaining that your factory is too loud. Should you, sitting on your manufacturing zone land, following the rules established for property zoned the way yours is, suddenly have to install a bunch of filters because some dude bought a bunch of cheap land is is trying an end run around the regulations that made it cheap in the first place?
I reviewed The End of History for my Historiography final in University. It was... awful really. I found his ideas simplistic and his proofs rather poor. I'd read student papers that I found more convincing. I honestly cannot believe that it got as much attention as it did. I was also pretty depressed that I didn't get to do Fredrick Jackson Turner or someone at least vaguely interesting. On the bright side, I got to be pretty snarky in a high level university history paper and still got an "A".
Didn't we just read a story yesterday that indicated some fairly substantial increases in overall research funding? It seems to me that this indicates a preference for certain research programs over others, not "a political lack of valuing science in America." I mean, you can quibble about which programs got the axe, or say that the overall raises in funding were insufficient, but to point at one research project among the hundreds or thousands that the federal government funds; and use that alone as evidence for a failure in will hardly seems reasonable. It sounds to me more like "My favorite program got cut! Americas hates teh sciences!!!1!one!"
Well, there are two facts to consider here:
1) I don't actually know what the value of $unpleasant act is. Context in the article and other comments leads me to think that it's rather less mundane than normal homosexual acts, though maybe that's all it is. I can't look at the moment, I'm at work.
2) I was basing my definition of "unpleasant" on how the campaign would see things, not my personal view. I don't really care where people choose to poke or be poked as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
I think, if I were the Santorum Campaign, that I'd be far less worried about the fact that some smartass linked the candidate's name with $upleasantact, than that apparently this linkage is apparently far more popular than my official campaign pages. Google results report, essentially, what is there, not what we want to be there. Apparently Sanatorum's Internet presence is so extensive and effective that a random parody get's more links that his actual site.
He wasn't saying that Microsoft isn't evil, only that their evilness or lack thereof is irrelevant to the point he is currently trying to make.
He has somewhat unrealistic expectations perhaps, but if it really bothers him and he isn't foolish enough to just quit his old job and get food stamps or something, why do you care? Yes, the economy is kinda crummy (getting better, but certainly not there yet), but you know what? I could have a new job in a month if I wanted. Crummy economy in general doesn't mean that a specific person with specific skills can't find a new job. At least in the Northeast, senior level Unix geeks (both admins and programmers) are in high demand. I was able to get my current job (north of Boston) in about three months of trying and I was job seeking from Alabama.
If he's a fairly skilled and experienced Unix geek then he can probably expect to find something pretty quickly. If not, he'll discover that changing jobs isn't as easy and he hoped and hopefully won't be so foolish as to have already quit his current gig.
As to the OP's original question: My personal experience is that unless you go to work for Red Hat or similar you're going to have a Hell of time finding and "Open Source job". While more and more companies are using OSS software for various things, precious frew of them use OSS softwaer exclusively. In my current gig I manage Linux servers and workstations for a a dev team that produces a Linux based product for our company, but most of the corporate infrastructure stuff is still Microsoft. My previous job was managing Unix HPC stuff for the government, but again the desktops were mostly Microsoft. Before that I was an HPC admin for a university, and again, desktop machines were Windows or Mac. Lots of Jobs for people with experience developing on, in, or taking care of OSS systems; many fewer that don't require at least some knowledge and/or and willingness to use MS systems at the same time.
That's easy to say, but when you're in any kind of regulated industry you often can't. Usually industries like energy, health care, finance, and government contracting have a limited number of devices that they're allowed to use. They could provide you a list and let you purchase one from the list, but they usually prefer just to purchase and issue phones they they know are allowed. Some also reduce the choices further to simply support. It's not always about you...
I wasn't directly involved in the site security certification stuff, but the Contractor I used to work for was doing test runs on iPhones as corporate communications devices when I left 5 months ago; and my wife's boss at Raytheon was debating an iPhone or BB as her new work phone a month or so ago. They must have gotten certified sometime in the last 6-8 months.
Add me to the pile of "I find virtual keyboards easier than the little ones on a Blackberry" people. I was using a coworkers BB a few days ago to text with another coworker who's number I didn't have. I wanted to throw the thing against a wall. It was awful to type on that tiny little chiclet keyboard, I am at least twice as fast on my iPhone or friends Android devices with virtual keyboards. It's all about what you're used too.
As a fairly liberal hippy type person, I have to say he's still pretty much right. You can't just say "Halliburton has done evil things, therefore all things done by Halliburton are evil". I disagree with a lot of things about the company, and I take anything they say with a grain of salt, but I seriously doubt they have "Chief Evil Officer" who's job it is to double check all corporate actions and make sure they meet the necessary standard of evil. Most likely enough people complained about Blackberry that IT decided to switch platforms. It's news because it shows that RIM is seriously hemorrhaging big customers. If they can't hold onto the Halliburtons, they're in even worse shape than a lot of people thought. I believe it was just a week or so ago that I was responding to a post about how "regulate" industries were never going to move to IPhone just because some dirty users wanted to... Well, yeah...
Age of consents vary, they tend toward the beginning of puberty in premodern cultures, owing largely to a relative short fertile period for women and a desire for relatively large families (due to high infant mortality rates); and the end of puberty in more modern cultures owing to our ability and willingness to keep our kids "children" longer. That's not the point. The point is that every culture I know of, and I've studied a fair few from medieval Europe and Asia to various Amerindian tribal cultures, have a line beneath which is "child-do not touch". Even in the upper aristocracy of Europe, where marriages of or to children were moderately common for dynastic reasons, the marriage couldn't be consummated until the younger of the pair was pubescent and considered an "adult".
Pedophilia will never become legal or accepted, what constitutes pedophilia may change based on cultural norms about maturity. It's highly unlikely that any society will ever consider it acceptable to have sex with anyone who has not at least begun the physical process of puberty. Societies where even that is acceptable nearly always consider puberty "adulthood", and prepare children for the responsibilities thereof as much as possible.
The question of what defines "child" is a somewhat arbitrary and cultural one. The question whether a child is able to give consent is not. culturally we may not agree on whether adulthood start at the beginning or the end of puberty on at exactly what age a boy becomes a man or a girl a woman, but no one pretends that a five old can make informed decisions. You're arguing semantics.
For more than a few people, most likely. Britain alone has a reasonably complete record of courts, laws and trials going back some thousand years or so, and for huge swathes of that crimes which we would now consider absurd were regularly prosecuted. Witchcraft, homosexuality, minor debts, "treasonous" activities that basically amount to free speech issues: just a small partial list of activities that could have gotten a person imprisoned or even executed at various time in British history... just the cases that are on record probably number in the hundreds of thousands.
Unlikely. As has been pointed out in about a thousand places every time there a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia, two homosexual men (or women) are adults capable of informed consent. A child is not and never will be able to provide informed consent, so there is unlikely to ever be a situation where children are seen as acceptable sexual partners. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality unless you accept that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Anyone who has ever had sex with another consenting adult outside of marriage and without the purpose of reproduction has done the functional equivalent of homosexual sex. Only rapists have done the function equivalent of child sex.
I suppose I should have been more specific. Certainly there are form of cancer, or stages of cancer, where accepting treatment is simply an uncomfortable way to prolong the inevitable. The implication in the GGP though is that his mother is deliberately avoiding doctors and potential diagnosis, because she intends to refuse treatment under almost any circumstances. It's one thing to rationally look at your options, realize that you have stage four small cell lung cancer, and extending your life for a few months of pain isn't worth it. It's another thing altogether to just ignore your health because you assume that whatever you get won't be treatable. Many, many people survive cancer. Many people don't, and when or if the diagnosis comes I completely agree that you should make rational choices based on likely prognosis; but at least get the checks and understand your options.
I don't mean to pry, but why on Earth would your mother refuse chemo? These days most cancers (not all, by any means, but most) are extremely treatable and survivable if caught early. It's unpleasant for a few months, but with a few exception you'll mostly always survive and be fine. It's not like it was 30 years ago where you were looking at 50-50 odds at best and the treatment was worse than the disease. I personally know literally half a dozen cancer survivors just among my family and people that I am close enough to to know their medical history. Most are as fit and active as ever now.
This was already said and responded to. Apparently the material is (obviously) not mathematically two dimensional, but there's also a physical concept of 2D which involves a material having reached its absolute minimum thinness. The molecules in glass are three atoms thick, therefore the thinnest possible glass is three atoms thick. According to the physical definition of 2D, this material is.
My wife dropped hers from chest height, (Probably around 4 feet, she's a fairly tall woman) onto a a train track rail. We were fully expecting to have our next stop be the AT&T store, but the phone was completely undamaged. I'm not saying they're indestructible, but they seem study enough for day to day use.