There was a time, not so many decades ago when, "Made in Japan" meant, "Crap".
India has a long way to go before they figure out the design and marketing game. It's an art form and they're still finger painting.
At the moment, absolutely everything about India's global marketing efforts stress me out. -I had the 'pleasure' of dealing with a couple of different go-getter hyper-competitive lunatics from India trying to engage me in business deals which had no chance in hell of happening because I was speaking at the speed of sane and they were speaking at the permanent setting of won't-take-No-for-an-answer-total-readiness-for-verbal-combat. It staggers the mind to think that Yoga came from India. Alert: The following IS A RACIST COMMENT:
India stresses me right out.
Until that country relaxes a LOT, nothing they make will be attractive to me and unless I am mistaken, the West. Fortunately for India, the West appears to be sinking fast, so it looks like they may be selling largely to themselves in the future. I hope they like their own media and technology because I absolutely can't stand it. It screams, "TRYING SOOOOOOOOO HARD! DO YOU LIKE ME YET? HOW ABOUT NOW? ACTUALLY YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE HERE ARE SIX EXCELLENT REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD LIKE ME..."
All my herd instinct "cool genes" are begging, "Please tell me you didn't invite India to the party." And I don't HAVE any cool genes. I'm a giant geek with a Slashdot UID over ten years old. That's how much India stresses me out.
But I do wish them well; give them another ten or twenty years and I'm sure they'll figure things out. Everybody seems to.
In the mean time, their giant freak show of a touch screen textbook is both endearing in its earnest attempt to please the market it is aiming at, and so entirely idiotic that I have to actively fight my instincts to not want to strangle it.
A quick search on linkedin.com shows me people working for Rovi, Sybase, OgilvyInteractive, Gryphon, Elgato, Adobe, Addictive Mobility, Microsoft, Prezi, Nokia, AOL, Mozilla, IBM, HP, and as you point out, Apple, with that word in their job titles. Perhaps you just don't get out much?
Wow. Yeah, that's news to me.
But it doesn't alleviate the creep factor. Rather, it's more like the scene in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where you realize the problem is a great deal bigger than you first thought. Though, I can't say it's out of character with most of those companies. But Mozilla? That one hurts.
Now I don't need to spend ten minutes trying to think of a clever way to word what you just explained.
Not that I technically needed to say anything. But this iPhone thing is like an obsessive itch; It bugs me because it's a major piece of social engineering in progress and it's being run by a control freak dick whose dream of reality just pisses me off. The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !
"Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis; "anthrax" in the public lexicon) is the most notorious biological warfare agent (BWA), having been used with lethal consequences in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks"
Didn't that anthrax come from your own labs, you idiots? Yes, I believe it did.
Terrorism isn't just state funded, it's an invention of the state itself. A small ember of genuine rebellion sought out and fanned into full flame by the careful ministrations of the American and Israeli secret services. And when that isn't good enough, covertly taken over and managed entirely from the top. "Terrorists" make such a great excuse for selling. . .
Peroxide!
"Get your whites whiter! It's made out of Food! Just like a McDonald's meal is made from meat, bread and milk! SOOOO good for you!"
Ugh.
-FL
Whoa! Modded into troll dust, I see. How amusing that moderators get so upset over, well, things that are true.
Congressman Rush Holt, whose district in NJ includes a mailbox from which anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed, was troubled by a number of important questions about the anthrax attacks and the FBI's investigation of it that remain unanswered, and has called for an investigation of the anthrax attacks by Congress or by an independent commission he proposed in a bill entitled the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)[81] Other members of Congress have also called for an independent investigation.[82]
President Barack Obama, however, opposes such investigations and such legislation on the ground that they may "undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe and would probably veto a bill that contained an investigation provision.[83]
Sit back and wait until you are arrested on obviously false charges the collect the large settlement.
In the UK? Just hope that your settlement is larger than the bill. Heck, one guy who was wrongly imprisoned for three years on a false accusation was, upon his release, sent a £12,500 bill for "board and lodging" by the state. And they made him pay it, too.
"Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis; "anthrax" in the public lexicon) is the most notorious biological warfare agent (BWA), having been used with lethal consequences in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks"
Didn't that anthrax come from your own labs, you idiots? Yes, I believe it did.
Terrorism isn't just state funded, it's an invention of the state itself. A small ember of genuine rebellion sought out and fanned into full flame by the careful ministrations of the American and Israeli secret services. And when that isn't good enough, covertly taken over and managed entirely from the top. "Terrorists" make such a great excuse for selling. . .
Peroxide!
"Get your whites whiter! It's made out of Food! Just like a McDonald's meal is made from meat, bread and milk! SOOOO good for you!"
This isn't news. There was no journalism involved here. No reporter investigating the accuracy of the ad copy. And yes, it's an advert. It was written by the military, sent whole-cloth to the journal, which cut out the guts and published the fanfare.
This is propaganda.
That's why it's idle. Thank-goodness the editors aren't dweebs. They recognize that this kind of thing, while interesting, is also insultingly stupid.
Gee! Wow! I've never heard THAT line of argument before.
Maybe if you and the other drones repeat it a million more times it'll magically become true!
If you honestly can't understand why that argument is broken, then you need to hold your breath for, oh, ten minutes ought to do it. Make Darwin proud!
Stop typing now. It's wasting bandwidth. And it makes the drool splash in an unsightly manner.
Not that I care, (I don't own a cell phone and I'll never own an i-anything), but the bait and switch being referred to is, I think, something other than what you're defending.
The "unlimited" plan was used to hype the device upon its launch in an effort to quickly establish a solid base of users and thus sculpt herd behavior. Everything about Apple marketing is based on a deep understanding of population psychology. Apple users are "hip" and educated conservatives who never really figured out what that wall was all about in the Pink Floyd song.
Now that 2 million devices have seeded the market, the herd is polarized. People already owning a device won't care because they've been "grandfathered" in. So now we have a huge base of happy pod people actively promoting and using the device. The hard sales job is done. Now if anybody else wants to get on board, (and they will, because the second tier of customers are the cowardly followers; they won't jump until they see what the rest of the herd is doing, but when they do, they'll be willing to pay as much as they have to in order to keep up.)
So that's the bait and the switch. I doubt very much that it wasn't carefully planned. Apple has some evil genius giant brain in a vat managing their marketing, I think;-)
I just re-read my response, and I don't like my dismissive tone towards you.
Please forgive my poor attitude. I was just feeling dismayed with some of the attacks I'd been receiving lately from other rude and thoughtless posters elsewhere and I clumped you in among them. You are among the more moderate people and I do appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. I know it takes courage to face the possibility of not knowing everything. Happens to me all the time, and it is never made easier when somebody is actively throwing mean-spirited words around.
Sigh. The correct response was to not get all defensive. You disappoint me.
And I know many, many people who make shit up and then claim it's a major breakthrough. Your point?
My point was that knowledge doesn't imply wisdom. You are making this plain by avoiding the point by changing the subject. That's the behavior of a child.
No, you'd just have to supply a link to the peer reviewed papers. Yet you have not.
Yes I did. But you just chose to pretend that I didn't. Here's another link which performed a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. ..
It's just more hand-waving about 'the truth is out there'. I've wasted enough time following the evidence trails of crackpots. I will not waste further time until the "extraordinary proof" level has been reached.
Talk is cheap. I have my doubts that you've explored much of anything with that attitude. Also, if you had, you wouldn't be asking questions which show such basic pieces of ignorance in this field, so I'm going to call bullshit on you.
Htz is the stock ticker for Hertz rent-a-car, not a unit of measure. I'm going to assume you ment Hertz, which is abbreviated Hz. Anyway, 60Hz isn't RF. Cell phones transmit in the MHz-to-GHz range.
Oh, come now. Yes, I used the wrong notation. (But hey, it gave you the chance to show off your well-groomed dictionary knowledge.) Now dig into that knowledge base of yours and tell me what you know about, "Frequency Modulation". -Because biological systems will respond to both analog wave forms and those which are modulated from high frequencies. Again, the fact you don't know this common detail suggest to me that you need to research the subject and not wait around for so-called "extraordinary evidence" to show up without you having to look for it.
The Earth's magnetic field doesn't cycle much within a small area, and definitely not at a fixed frequency.
Yes, I know. The Earth's magnetic field doesn't have to move at all for the example I offered to work. I didn't say that it did, and if I gave you that impression then I do apologize.
As for the rest of your so-called example, you now have a 100+ year old technology that you claim is killing people, yet has not been linked to increased mortality. And considering your experiment contains fundamental flaws, such as believing the Earth's magnetic field pulses regularly, there really isn't reason to believe in the conclusions.
I think you need to slow down. You're mis-interpreting what I wrote and making false assumptions based on those interpretations. And I certainly don't think it's fair to place emphasis on the fact that, "I think this technology is killing people". That makes me sound hysterical, which I am certainly not. I've been quite clear in saying that whatever cancer risks may be present are not the focus of my interest. I'm interested in how EM can affect cognition and the nervous system in non-destructive ways.
I'm "stuck" on breaking chemical bonds because that is the only proven mechanism where EM causes disease.
"Proven" is a big word. You're talking about orthodox truth, which is spotty at best and agreed upon more by television broadcasters and public relations firms. And in any case, disease isn't the whole enchilada by a long shot. I keep telling you, I'm interested primarily in how EM affects cognition.
First, the sun *does* emit a steady stream of 10-500 Hz radio waves -- it emits in a distribution much closer to a black body than white noise -- and has since long before WWII. It's the brightest astronomical source of just about all wavelengths below 1m (i.e. ~300 MHz), and a non-trivial emitter above that. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v161/n4081/abs/161091a0.html
The article you linked only suggests that what you are saying might be the case, and only under specific conditions.
That's very different from the claim that the Sun outputs a steady stream of such emissions.
There's a reason why radios still work when the Sun is shining. Biological systems are able to differentiate as well.
I'm an ex-microbiologist. I got well past 12. In fact, I'm absolutely sure I know more about science and living creatures than you do.
I know a lot of people who have collected a huge amount of knowledge who are still locked down with a multitude psychological knots which prevent a full scope of rational behavior. I know guys who can quote encyclopedias at me but who can't dress themselves properly or reconcile their own behavior patterns which prevent them from getting and maintaining jobs, friends, wives. And while those are gross examples, MOST people carry around quantities of emotional/psychological baggage rendering them emotionally and psychologically child-like in many ways.
Apparently, you don't know what 'peer-reviewed' means. One of the key elements is you don't get to pick the peers that review your work, unlike the papers you've cited.
I know what peer-reviewed means, thanks. And while there is a body of non peer-reviewed work in the sources quoted, there IS some which is. But you'd have to spend some time reading through the materials I've offered to see them. If you were a a microbiologist, then you have spent thousands of hours reading, and you ought to be very good at it. The prospect of reading one book and one paper shouldn't take you any time at all. I recommend the book especially; it cites a wealth of excellent science. And yes, peer-reviewed science.
3 questions. But they are the dividing line between science and quackery. If you answer them with an answer that is remotely coherent, I'll happily read your articles.
Okay, but I recommend the book over the paper.
1. Cell phones give off much less RF than other sources, including the sun, radio antennas and your microwave. Why are cell phones different? What physical phenomena of the RF signal from a cell phone makes it lethal, whereas leakage from a microwave is not?
Cancer is not the issue, (although it is certainly part of the story). The actual mechanics are not fully understood, but there are numerous suggested models. Basically, sympathetic resonance is the key. Here's one example, duplicated in different labs, which shows how low-power EM can affect cellular behavior. ..
A 60 Htz signal was used in the experiment. In conjunction with the Earth's natural magnetic field, (at the low end), through a process known as cyclotronic resonanace the lithium ion resonates, absorbs energy from the field and then moves on a vector when in a medium allowing motion. In this state, the excited ion is able to more readily penetrate the Blood Brain Barrier of the rats being used in the experiments. The effect was that trace quantities of lithium in the blood stream of the test animals, when excited by basic wall socket current, was able to deliver the equivalent of a much higher medicinal dosage of lithium.
That's just one example to illustrate how low power signals which are not capable of causing damage to chemical bonds are able to have an impact on cellular behavior.
2. Why was there been no spike in mortality surrounding large RF transmitters, including TV, radio and cell towers?
There have been many studies which strongly disagree with your base assumption. Numerous studies show that there are in fact spikes in leukemia among people living along power transmission lines, but I don't know how accurate those claims are. I find statistical studies of any sort hard to take entirely seriously simply because there are usually hundreds of other possible agents which might be involved but which are not examined by the study. In any case, I am far more interested in effects on cognition than I am in cancer.
3. Since RF in the frequencies used by a cell phone can not break chemical bonds, what is the mechanism by which damage is caused? And since we can repair most damage from powerf
No, it fucking doesn't, you scientifically illiterate cunt. This shows absolutely nothing. But keep adjusting that tinfoil hat.
I think this one is my favorite; It's ignorant, rude and wonderfully ironic.
It demonstrates in its simplicity the very soul of the knuckle-dragging scientifically illiterate hypocrite. "When the results come back with something which rubs your bias the wrong way, throw a tantrum and fling profanities."
The scariest thing is that you would have to explain that, do people not have common sense to think about what they have been told? Is critical thinking dead?
Yes. YOUR critical thinking is dead. But the scariest thing is that you are so entirely certain you are right without actually having touched any of the available research. How can you possibly assume knowledge when you haven't got any?
First of all. . , yes, we've been exposed to EM since WWII. And we've been affected by it since then as well. Do you remember what it was like before WWII? No? Then you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? I however, have done the research, so I know that there are some significant differences.
Secondly. . , The Sun emits white noise. It doesn't emit steady frequencies which are modulated down to the 10 to 500 hz range where the human nervous system responds biologically to such low power signals in a variety of peculiar and repeatedly observed ways.
Oh. You didn't consider that, did you?
What else didn't you consider?
How about before putting your foot in your mouth again, or letting your Ego stomp all over your keyboard, you do some research rather than watching TV and pretending you know what you are talking about. Hint: The herd is nearly always wrong, and herd logic is what you are tapping into with your broken examples.
I gave two links. I'd start with Becker if I were you.
I find it an enduring source of puzzlement that people are so willing to dismiss documents on the flimsiest of excuses without bothering to read them while at the same time complaining that nobody is able to provide any evidence.
Ha ha!
If you want evidence, you'll have to climb out of your foxhole and do some reading, champ.
Unless you are utterly without a brain, you have no-doubt heard of a little thing known as "conflict of interest". You're not going to get any documents explaining the reality of cell-phone radiation to you because enormously wealthy companies and governments with vested interests don't want you to know. We've seen it happen many times before, most notably with the tobacco industry and we KNOW it's happening here. Further, we KNOW that scientific academia is corrupt and unreliable. Just last month we had a story on Slashdot decrying just such a travesty. Do you REALLY think that the military and telecommunications industry would allow civilian journals to lay it all out in the open without a fight? Don't be such a naive twit.
But despite that, both those links are filled with peer-reviewed works. The research isn't the hard part. It's the publishing and promotion of the data which is hard to do, and it's compounded by the fact that people like you refuse to read anything but the corporate pap which passes for science these days.
But it's your assessment of Becker which is jaw-droppingly naive. Sorry, but it is. It's like saying, "Well, if Santa doesn't exist, then where do all the presents come from? There are presents under the tree, so obviously your book which claims Santa is make-believe must be false, therefore I will not read it." That's the circular avoidance logic of a five year-old.
As for Cross Currents...Becker's (and your) major problem linking RF to disease is that people are exposed to far stronger electromagnetic effects by going outside. Clothing and hats block high-energy EM like UV and visible light, but don't do anything against the RF coming from the sun. Why didn't that kill us all when we first descended from the trees?
If you want to know why that comment is hopelessly off-base, you'll need to start accepting and reading the documents which contain the answers instead of hiding from them. The answers are amazing, sensible, based on hard science, and anybody who is honest in his love for science should be happy to expose himself to that knowledge. Those who don't are fakes. They don't love science. They love being told what to think and they are afraid of being laughed at by the retarded herd if they dare read anything deemed 'uncool'. Most people are so traumatized by Jr. High School that they wind up mentally stunted and never really advance beyond the age of about 12.
So read before judging. Start with Becker; his work is seminal.
Of course, I know you won't. I've run into your type so many times before; Those who demand proof but refuse to read it when it is handed to them, coming up with every excuse under the sun to avoid actually having to look at or process strings of simple text. But more astonishing are the times when people will actually re-boot after seeing some evidence which illustrates that they are wrong. I've watched this happen a few times, (it's rare, because people are so good at not looking when they don't want to), but when a piece of new knowledge does by some miracle become unavoidably placed in a person's awareness, I've seen expressions of fear, shock, re-booting, and then the actual blanking out of the memory the very next day.
Umm...no, it is not well established that "cell phone radiation" aka radio waves can disrupt cellular activity. Radio waves don't have enough energy to break carbon bonds, refer to the standard issue electromagnetic spectrum diagram which means they can't affect cells.
You're clearly not illiterate. You clearly know how to think. So why are you ignorant on this subject?
There are numerous mechanism by which cells respond to modulated low-power EM well below the range where carbon bonds break. Just as an example, the Lithium ion sympathetically resonates at 60 Htz in conjunction with the Earth's magnetic field, and moves on a vector so that it can more easily penetrate things like the Blood Brain Barrier. Thus when Lithium is present in the blood stream, when exposed to basic wall socket power, the chemical reactions increase in frequency and can do so to the point of mimicking the effects of a larger medicinal dosage of lithium when no EM field is present. The principal is called, "Cyclotronic Resonance". Just as a for-instance.
The state of knowledge the common people have on this subject is pitiful, and there is SO much information available. You just have to do some reading. Stop playing snotty Walmart Shopper and live up to your potential.
I've given you two sources to start from. You can find more. Only retards cling to ignorance and corporate PR as though it were some sort of trophy.
I tend to think that CCD is a combination of several accumulated stress vectors, including pesticides and ticks and the fact that many bees are trucked around the countryside.
But this does show that cell phones can disrupt living systems. That cell phone radiation can disrupt cellular activity is well established (well, among those anyway, who aren't living in denial due to reality being hard to live with re their cell phone usage. "It can't be true, because if it is then I would be both inconvenienced and wrong, and neither condition is acceptable, so I will argue until I am blue in the face!") A profound truth is that many people stop developing mentally by around the age of about ten.
Here's a study which details a fair bit of what was known a few years ago. . .
Also, Robert O. Becker's book, Cross Currents is a good collection and summary of what is known about the subject. You can pick up a used copy on Amazon for about four dollars plus postage.
If you don't understand it you are just as much a pathetic shithead as that other poster with his shithead question.
Holy Thundering Egos, Batman!
I offered you a reasonable post aimed directly on the level with every intention of discussing some interesting things with another sentient being who I was taking seriously and was open to insights from after sharing my own. Basically, I assumed you were a reasonable person.
You're not. You're actually more than a little bit insane. The final, disgusting line in your previous post was an indicator or that, but I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. You clearly didn't deserve it, so thanks for clearing that up.
The poster's question was perfectly relevant. Why is some ignorant and thoughtless behavior worthy of your disdain and others not?
The answer, of course, is that children are still learning the rules and how to control their responses, and that it is easy for them to make mistakes while adults are supposed to have learned how to function with a modicum of sense and self-control.
Here's the thing; it's all about the definitions. For my part, I can feel the pain and fear of others quite easily. But the greater the perspective, the less the pain and the more full the understanding. Compassion after that point is a choice, not an automatic reaction. Pain is visceral, it resonates. Compassion doesn't require one to feel pain directly or to resonate with it. Simply to understand and decide to care.
I was reading a book of letters and poems. One piece was written by a love-stung 16 year-old who was clearly in an agony of the heart which for him felt like the end of the world. I had an odd reaction. I couldn't help but laugh! But not in a mean way; rather because I knew he was going to survive and that the trauma was not as serious as he described; the sense of drama was just over the top. But I can certainly remember what it felt like when I was 16, and so even though I laughed, I could feel compassion and were I talking with the boy, I'd have been patient and commiserate and encouraging. And that's basically how I feel about the various people you described in your examples. "Yep. Those are some silly mistakes which will lead to pain, and it's all their fault," but it's all just lessons; we all have to go through lessons. It's easy to get impatient with slow learners, but in person, when I can see the agony on their faces, and feel it in the air, it's hard not to resonate with that pain myself. Sometimes it is too strong to be around, I find, anyway, and I need to pull back.
I think the real question is whether or not one can resonate with the pain of others. What one does with that pain is another question altogether.
I don't know if this is evidence of one of the endless time-loops running all around and through us all the time which nobody seems to notice, or just a lot of retarded people running on automatic programming playing their roles, but this is nearly an exact replay of an event which happened thirty-one years ago.
Religions are organized systems of beliefs you subscribe to and group around and wave flags and generally stop thinking in lieu of somebody else's instructions in some bullshit codex.
Spirituality is something altogether different. Spirituality is an umbrella term which describes the human relationship with the spirit realm; everything beyond and outside the direct reach of the material world. It encompasses the soul, with the forces which Astrological observations pivot upon, it deals with the Kung Fu concept of 'energy'. Ghosts and spirit communication. All that stuff. That's spirituality.
Religions are simply rule systems which try to codify all that stuff, then pervert it into a means of keeping priests in food and gold and the people enslaved.
Religion and Spirituality are polar opposites! This is really important to understand. One is a perversion of the other.
Any scientist who is not living in wonder of the unseen and (as yet) unanswered is blocked.
And here's the best part. Science can be used to understand the spirit realm! (And I'm not talking about blindly dismissing phenomena as arbitrary clouds of swamp gas.) Basically, if it exists, (which the spirit realm does indeed), then it can be studied and worked with in a rational manner. Religion HATES that idea, because it means the priests are no longer the gate keepers, but the power is granted to anybody who THINKS. Religious leaders thus have a vested interest in keeping the argument burning and unresolved.
Religion is evil.
Science is good. Period.
I wish there were more real scientists who didn't block out the spirit realm because of petty fears. It sounds like there are a lot of cowards out there who need to bone up and say what they think. Honest science cannot be performed when one is worried about what peers will think of your thoughts and conclusions. Science is all about proclaiming new things which haven't been proclaimed before! You can't afford to have emotional limits placed on that. We don't know where Truth will turn up next, but people act as though they already know all the possible manifestations of truth. Science is supposed to cut through that conflicted tangle, and when it's done right, it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us figured that formula out years ago. That's why I believe next to nothing which comes out of the media today.
If you're right, does it still mean you're cynical?
-FL
http://www.khaaan.com/
I've lost track; how many years has Kirk been yodeling into the ether like that?
-FL
There was a time, not so many decades ago when, "Made in Japan" meant, "Crap".
India has a long way to go before they figure out the design and marketing game. It's an art form and they're still finger painting.
At the moment, absolutely everything about India's global marketing efforts stress me out. -I had the 'pleasure' of dealing with a couple of different go-getter hyper-competitive lunatics from India trying to engage me in business deals which had no chance in hell of happening because I was speaking at the speed of sane and they were speaking at the permanent setting of won't-take-No-for-an-answer-total-readiness-for-verbal-combat. It staggers the mind to think that Yoga came from India. Alert: The following IS A RACIST COMMENT:
India stresses me right out.
Until that country relaxes a LOT, nothing they make will be attractive to me and unless I am mistaken, the West. Fortunately for India, the West appears to be sinking fast, so it looks like they may be selling largely to themselves in the future. I hope they like their own media and technology because I absolutely can't stand it. It screams, "TRYING SOOOOOOOOO HARD! DO YOU LIKE ME YET? HOW ABOUT NOW? ACTUALLY YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE HERE ARE SIX EXCELLENT REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD LIKE ME..."
All my herd instinct "cool genes" are begging, "Please tell me you didn't invite India to the party." And I don't HAVE any cool genes. I'm a giant geek with a Slashdot UID over ten years old. That's how much India stresses me out.
But I do wish them well; give them another ten or twenty years and I'm sure they'll figure things out. Everybody seems to.
In the mean time, their giant freak show of a touch screen textbook is both endearing in its earnest attempt to please the market it is aiming at, and so entirely idiotic that I have to actively fight my instincts to not want to strangle it.
-FL
A quick search on linkedin.com shows me people working for Rovi, Sybase, OgilvyInteractive, Gryphon, Elgato, Adobe, Addictive Mobility, Microsoft, Prezi, Nokia, AOL, Mozilla, IBM, HP, and as you point out, Apple, with that word in their job titles. Perhaps you just don't get out much?
Wow. Yeah, that's news to me.
But it doesn't alleviate the creep factor. Rather, it's more like the scene in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where you realize the problem is a great deal bigger than you first thought. Though, I can't say it's out of character with most of those companies. But Mozilla? That one hurts.
Oh dear; when did all my heroes die?
-FL
Thank-you!
Now I don't need to spend ten minutes trying to think of a clever way to word what you just explained.
Not that I technically needed to say anything. But this iPhone thing is like an obsessive itch; It bugs me because it's a major piece of social engineering in progress and it's being run by a control freak dick whose dream of reality just pisses me off. The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !
-FL
Favorite line in the ad copy. . .
"Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis; "anthrax" in the public lexicon) is the most notorious biological warfare agent (BWA), having been used with lethal consequences in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks"
Didn't that anthrax come from your own labs, you idiots? Yes, I believe it did.
Terrorism isn't just state funded, it's an invention of the state itself. A small ember of genuine rebellion sought out and fanned into full flame by the careful ministrations of the American and Israeli secret services. And when that isn't good enough, covertly taken over and managed entirely from the top. "Terrorists" make such a great excuse for selling. . .
Peroxide!
"Get your whites whiter! It's made out of Food! Just like a McDonald's meal is made from meat, bread and milk! SOOOO good for you!"
Ugh.
-FL
Whoa! Modded into troll dust, I see. How amusing that moderators get so upset over, well, things that are true.
Pardon me while I add some references...
The Anthrax Scare in detail.
Please note this item from the above. . .
Congressman Rush Holt, whose district in NJ includes a mailbox from which anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed, was troubled by a number of important questions about the anthrax attacks and the FBI's investigation of it that remain unanswered, and has called for an investigation of the anthrax attacks by Congress or by an independent commission he proposed in a bill entitled the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)[81] Other members of Congress have also called for an independent investigation.[82]
President Barack Obama, however, opposes such investigations and such legislation on the ground that they may "undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe and would probably veto a bill that contained an investigation provision.[83]
Have a nice day!
-FL
Sit back and wait until you are arrested on obviously false charges the collect the large settlement.
In the UK? Just hope that your settlement is larger than the bill. Heck, one guy who was wrongly imprisoned for three years on a false accusation was, upon his release, sent a £12,500 bill for "board and lodging" by the state. And they made him pay it, too.
-FL
Favorite line in the ad copy. . .
"Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis; "anthrax" in the public lexicon) is the most notorious biological warfare agent (BWA), having been used with lethal consequences in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks"
Didn't that anthrax come from your own labs, you idiots? Yes, I believe it did.
Terrorism isn't just state funded, it's an invention of the state itself. A small ember of genuine rebellion sought out and fanned into full flame by the careful ministrations of the American and Israeli secret services. And when that isn't good enough, covertly taken over and managed entirely from the top. "Terrorists" make such a great excuse for selling. . .
Peroxide!
"Get your whites whiter! It's made out of Food! Just like a McDonald's meal is made from meat, bread and milk! SOOOO good for you!"
Ugh.
-FL
This is Idle because it's bullshit.
This isn't news. There was no journalism involved here. No reporter investigating the accuracy of the ad copy. And yes, it's an advert. It was written by the military, sent whole-cloth to the journal, which cut out the guts and published the fanfare.
This is propaganda.
That's why it's idle. Thank-goodness the editors aren't dweebs. They recognize that this kind of thing, while interesting, is also insultingly stupid.
-FL
Gee! Wow! I've never heard THAT line of argument before.
Maybe if you and the other drones repeat it a million more times it'll magically become true!
If you honestly can't understand why that argument is broken, then you need to hold your breath for, oh, ten minutes ought to do it. Make Darwin proud!
Stop typing now. It's wasting bandwidth. And it makes the drool splash in an unsightly manner.
-FL
Not that I care, (I don't own a cell phone and I'll never own an i-anything), but the bait and switch being referred to is, I think, something other than what you're defending.
The "unlimited" plan was used to hype the device upon its launch in an effort to quickly establish a solid base of users and thus sculpt herd behavior. Everything about Apple marketing is based on a deep understanding of population psychology. Apple users are "hip" and educated conservatives who never really figured out what that wall was all about in the Pink Floyd song.
Now that 2 million devices have seeded the market, the herd is polarized. People already owning a device won't care because they've been "grandfathered" in. So now we have a huge base of happy pod people actively promoting and using the device. The hard sales job is done. Now if anybody else wants to get on board, (and they will, because the second tier of customers are the cowardly followers; they won't jump until they see what the rest of the herd is doing, but when they do, they'll be willing to pay as much as they have to in order to keep up.)
So that's the bait and the switch. I doubt very much that it wasn't carefully planned. Apple has some evil genius giant brain in a vat managing their marketing, I think ;-)
-FL
I just re-read my response, and I don't like my dismissive tone towards you.
Please forgive my poor attitude. I was just feeling dismayed with some of the attacks I'd been receiving lately from other rude and thoughtless posters elsewhere and I clumped you in among them. You are among the more moderate people and I do appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. I know it takes courage to face the possibility of not knowing everything. Happens to me all the time, and it is never made easier when somebody is actively throwing mean-spirited words around.
-FL
Sigh. The correct response was to not get all defensive. You disappoint me.
And I know many, many people who make shit up and then claim it's a major breakthrough. Your point?
My point was that knowledge doesn't imply wisdom. You are making this plain by avoiding the point by changing the subject. That's the behavior of a child.
No, you'd just have to supply a link to the peer reviewed papers. Yet you have not.
Yes I did. But you just chose to pretend that I didn't. Here's another link which performed a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. . .
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/JCO.2008.21.6366v1
Here's another sixty or so papers presented in a document which have been peer-reviewed/refereed before inclusion.
http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20090407_competence_genes_mobile_phones.pdf
It's just more hand-waving about 'the truth is out there'. I've wasted enough time following the evidence trails of crackpots. I will not waste further time until the "extraordinary proof" level has been reached.
Talk is cheap. I have my doubts that you've explored much of anything with that attitude. Also, if you had, you wouldn't be asking questions which show such basic pieces of ignorance in this field, so I'm going to call bullshit on you.
Htz is the stock ticker for Hertz rent-a-car, not a unit of measure. I'm going to assume you ment Hertz, which is abbreviated Hz. Anyway, 60Hz isn't RF. Cell phones transmit in the MHz-to-GHz range.
Oh, come now. Yes, I used the wrong notation. (But hey, it gave you the chance to show off your well-groomed dictionary knowledge.) Now dig into that knowledge base of yours and tell me what you know about, "Frequency Modulation". -Because biological systems will respond to both analog wave forms and those which are modulated from high frequencies. Again, the fact you don't know this common detail suggest to me that you need to research the subject and not wait around for so-called "extraordinary evidence" to show up without you having to look for it.
The Earth's magnetic field doesn't cycle much within a small area, and definitely not at a fixed frequency.
Yes, I know. The Earth's magnetic field doesn't have to move at all for the example I offered to work. I didn't say that it did, and if I gave you that impression then I do apologize.
As for the rest of your so-called example, you now have a 100+ year old technology that you claim is killing people, yet has not been linked to increased mortality. And considering your experiment contains fundamental flaws, such as believing the Earth's magnetic field pulses regularly, there really isn't reason to believe in the conclusions.
I think you need to slow down. You're mis-interpreting what I wrote and making false assumptions based on those interpretations. And I certainly don't think it's fair to place emphasis on the fact that, "I think this technology is killing people". That makes me sound hysterical, which I am certainly not. I've been quite clear in saying that whatever cancer risks may be present are not the focus of my interest. I'm interested in how EM can affect cognition and the nervous system in non-destructive ways.
I'm "stuck" on breaking chemical bonds because that is the only proven mechanism where EM causes disease.
"Proven" is a big word. You're talking about orthodox truth, which is spotty at best and agreed upon more by television broadcasters and public relations firms. And in any case, disease isn't the whole enchilada by a long shot. I keep telling you, I'm interested primarily in how EM affects cognition.
First, the sun *does* emit a steady stream of 10-500 Hz radio waves -- it emits in a distribution much closer to a black body than white noise -- and has since long before WWII. It's the brightest astronomical source of just about all wavelengths below 1m (i.e. ~300 MHz), and a non-trivial emitter above that. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v161/n4081/abs/161091a0.html
The article you linked only suggests that what you are saying might be the case, and only under specific conditions.
That's very different from the claim that the Sun outputs a steady stream of such emissions.
There's a reason why radios still work when the Sun is shining. Biological systems are able to differentiate as well.
-FL
I'm an ex-microbiologist. I got well past 12. In fact, I'm absolutely sure I know more about science and living creatures than you do.
I know a lot of people who have collected a huge amount of knowledge who are still locked down with a multitude psychological knots which prevent a full scope of rational behavior. I know guys who can quote encyclopedias at me but who can't dress themselves properly or reconcile their own behavior patterns which prevent them from getting and maintaining jobs, friends, wives. And while those are gross examples, MOST people carry around quantities of emotional/psychological baggage rendering them emotionally and psychologically child-like in many ways.
Apparently, you don't know what 'peer-reviewed' means. One of the key elements is you don't get to pick the peers that review your work, unlike the papers you've cited.
I know what peer-reviewed means, thanks. And while there is a body of non peer-reviewed work in the sources quoted, there IS some which is. But you'd have to spend some time reading through the materials I've offered to see them. If you were a a microbiologist, then you have spent thousands of hours reading, and you ought to be very good at it. The prospect of reading one book and one paper shouldn't take you any time at all. I recommend the book especially; it cites a wealth of excellent science. And yes, peer-reviewed science.
3 questions. But they are the dividing line between science and quackery. If you answer them with an answer that is remotely coherent, I'll happily read your articles.
Okay, but I recommend the book over the paper.
1. Cell phones give off much less RF than other sources, including the sun, radio antennas and your microwave. Why are cell phones different? What physical phenomena of the RF signal from a cell phone makes it lethal, whereas leakage from a microwave is not?
Cancer is not the issue, (although it is certainly part of the story). The actual mechanics are not fully understood, but there are numerous suggested models. Basically, sympathetic resonance is the key. Here's one example, duplicated in different labs, which shows how low-power EM can affect cellular behavior. . .
A 60 Htz signal was used in the experiment. In conjunction with the Earth's natural magnetic field, (at the low end), through a process known as cyclotronic resonanace the lithium ion resonates, absorbs energy from the field and then moves on a vector when in a medium allowing motion. In this state, the excited ion is able to more readily penetrate the Blood Brain Barrier of the rats being used in the experiments. The effect was that trace quantities of lithium in the blood stream of the test animals, when excited by basic wall socket current, was able to deliver the equivalent of a much higher medicinal dosage of lithium.
That's just one example to illustrate how low power signals which are not capable of causing damage to chemical bonds are able to have an impact on cellular behavior.
2. Why was there been no spike in mortality surrounding large RF transmitters, including TV, radio and cell towers?
There have been many studies which strongly disagree with your base assumption. Numerous studies show that there are in fact spikes in leukemia among people living along power transmission lines, but I don't know how accurate those claims are. I find statistical studies of any sort hard to take entirely seriously simply because there are usually hundreds of other possible agents which might be involved but which are not examined by the study. In any case, I am far more interested in effects on cognition than I am in cancer.
3. Since RF in the frequencies used by a cell phone can not break chemical bonds, what is the mechanism by which damage is caused? And since we can repair most damage from powerf
No, it fucking doesn't, you scientifically illiterate cunt. This shows absolutely nothing. But keep adjusting that tinfoil hat.
I think this one is my favorite; It's ignorant, rude and wonderfully ironic.
It demonstrates in its simplicity the very soul of the knuckle-dragging scientifically illiterate hypocrite. "When the results come back with something which rubs your bias the wrong way, throw a tantrum and fling profanities."
-FL
The scariest thing is that you would have to explain that, do people not have common sense to think about what they have been told? Is critical thinking dead?
Yes. YOUR critical thinking is dead. But the scariest thing is that you are so entirely certain you are right without actually having touched any of the available research. How can you possibly assume knowledge when you haven't got any?
First of all. . , yes, we've been exposed to EM since WWII. And we've been affected by it since then as well. Do you remember what it was like before WWII? No? Then you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? I however, have done the research, so I know that there are some significant differences.
Secondly. . , The Sun emits white noise. It doesn't emit steady frequencies which are modulated down to the 10 to 500 hz range where the human nervous system responds biologically to such low power signals in a variety of peculiar and repeatedly observed ways.
Oh. You didn't consider that, did you?
What else didn't you consider?
How about before putting your foot in your mouth again, or letting your Ego stomp all over your keyboard, you do some research rather than watching TV and pretending you know what you are talking about. Hint: The herd is nearly always wrong, and herd logic is what you are tapping into with your broken examples.
I gave two links. I'd start with Becker if I were you.
-FL
I find it an enduring source of puzzlement that people are so willing to dismiss documents on the flimsiest of excuses without bothering to read them while at the same time complaining that nobody is able to provide any evidence.
Ha ha!
If you want evidence, you'll have to climb out of your foxhole and do some reading, champ.
Unless you are utterly without a brain, you have no-doubt heard of a little thing known as "conflict of interest". You're not going to get any documents explaining the reality of cell-phone radiation to you because enormously wealthy companies and governments with vested interests don't want you to know. We've seen it happen many times before, most notably with the tobacco industry and we KNOW it's happening here. Further, we KNOW that scientific academia is corrupt and unreliable. Just last month we had a story on Slashdot decrying just such a travesty. Do you REALLY think that the military and telecommunications industry would allow civilian journals to lay it all out in the open without a fight? Don't be such a naive twit.
But despite that, both those links are filled with peer-reviewed works. The research isn't the hard part. It's the publishing and promotion of the data which is hard to do, and it's compounded by the fact that people like you refuse to read anything but the corporate pap which passes for science these days.
But it's your assessment of Becker which is jaw-droppingly naive. Sorry, but it is. It's like saying, "Well, if Santa doesn't exist, then where do all the presents come from? There are presents under the tree, so obviously your book which claims Santa is make-believe must be false, therefore I will not read it." That's the circular avoidance logic of a five year-old.
As for Cross Currents...Becker's (and your) major problem linking RF to disease is that people are exposed to far stronger electromagnetic effects by going outside. Clothing and hats block high-energy EM like UV and visible light, but don't do anything against the RF coming from the sun. Why didn't that kill us all when we first descended from the trees?
If you want to know why that comment is hopelessly off-base, you'll need to start accepting and reading the documents which contain the answers instead of hiding from them. The answers are amazing, sensible, based on hard science, and anybody who is honest in his love for science should be happy to expose himself to that knowledge. Those who don't are fakes. They don't love science. They love being told what to think and they are afraid of being laughed at by the retarded herd if they dare read anything deemed 'uncool'. Most people are so traumatized by Jr. High School that they wind up mentally stunted and never really advance beyond the age of about 12.
So read before judging. Start with Becker; his work is seminal.
Of course, I know you won't. I've run into your type so many times before; Those who demand proof but refuse to read it when it is handed to them, coming up with every excuse under the sun to avoid actually having to look at or process strings of simple text. But more astonishing are the times when people will actually re-boot after seeing some evidence which illustrates that they are wrong. I've watched this happen a few times, (it's rare, because people are so good at not looking when they don't want to), but when a piece of new knowledge does by some miracle become unavoidably placed in a person's awareness, I've seen expressions of fear, shock, re-booting, and then the actual blanking out of the memory the very next day.
It's amazing how fragile and cowardly people are.
-FL
Umm...no, it is not well established that "cell phone radiation" aka radio waves can disrupt cellular activity. Radio waves don't have enough energy to break carbon bonds, refer to the standard issue electromagnetic spectrum diagram which means they can't affect cells.
You're clearly not illiterate. You clearly know how to think. So why are you ignorant on this subject?
There are numerous mechanism by which cells respond to modulated low-power EM well below the range where carbon bonds break. Just as an example, the Lithium ion sympathetically resonates at 60 Htz in conjunction with the Earth's magnetic field, and moves on a vector so that it can more easily penetrate things like the Blood Brain Barrier. Thus when Lithium is present in the blood stream, when exposed to basic wall socket power, the chemical reactions increase in frequency and can do so to the point of mimicking the effects of a larger medicinal dosage of lithium when no EM field is present. The principal is called, "Cyclotronic Resonance". Just as a for-instance.
The state of knowledge the common people have on this subject is pitiful, and there is SO much information available. You just have to do some reading. Stop playing snotty Walmart Shopper and live up to your potential.
I've given you two sources to start from. You can find more. Only retards cling to ignorance and corporate PR as though it were some sort of trophy.
-FL
I tend to think that CCD is a combination of several accumulated stress vectors, including pesticides and ticks and the fact that many bees are trucked around the countryside.
But this does show that cell phones can disrupt living systems. That cell phone radiation can disrupt cellular activity is well established (well, among those anyway, who aren't living in denial due to reality being hard to live with re their cell phone usage. "It can't be true, because if it is then I would be both inconvenienced and wrong, and neither condition is acceptable, so I will argue until I am blue in the face!") A profound truth is that many people stop developing mentally by around the age of about ten.
Here's a study which details a fair bit of what was known a few years ago. . .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12893533/The-Ecolog-Study
Also, Robert O. Becker's book, Cross Currents is a good collection and summary of what is known about the subject. You can pick up a used copy on Amazon for about four dollars plus postage.
-FL
If you don't understand it you are just as much a pathetic shithead as that other poster with his shithead question.
Holy Thundering Egos, Batman!
I offered you a reasonable post aimed directly on the level with every intention of discussing some interesting things with another sentient being who I was taking seriously and was open to insights from after sharing my own. Basically, I assumed you were a reasonable person.
You're not. You're actually more than a little bit insane. The final, disgusting line in your previous post was an indicator or that, but I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. You clearly didn't deserve it, so thanks for clearing that up.
Bye now.
-FL
The poster's question was perfectly relevant. Why is some ignorant and thoughtless behavior worthy of your disdain and others not?
The answer, of course, is that children are still learning the rules and how to control their responses, and that it is easy for them to make mistakes while adults are supposed to have learned how to function with a modicum of sense and self-control.
Here's the thing; it's all about the definitions. For my part, I can feel the pain and fear of others quite easily. But the greater the perspective, the less the pain and the more full the understanding. Compassion after that point is a choice, not an automatic reaction. Pain is visceral, it resonates. Compassion doesn't require one to feel pain directly or to resonate with it. Simply to understand and decide to care.
I was reading a book of letters and poems. One piece was written by a love-stung 16 year-old who was clearly in an agony of the heart which for him felt like the end of the world. I had an odd reaction. I couldn't help but laugh! But not in a mean way; rather because I knew he was going to survive and that the trauma was not as serious as he described; the sense of drama was just over the top. But I can certainly remember what it felt like when I was 16, and so even though I laughed, I could feel compassion and were I talking with the boy, I'd have been patient and commiserate and encouraging. And that's basically how I feel about the various people you described in your examples. "Yep. Those are some silly mistakes which will lead to pain, and it's all their fault," but it's all just lessons; we all have to go through lessons. It's easy to get impatient with slow learners, but in person, when I can see the agony on their faces, and feel it in the air, it's hard not to resonate with that pain myself. Sometimes it is too strong to be around, I find, anyway, and I need to pull back.
I think the real question is whether or not one can resonate with the pain of others. What one does with that pain is another question altogether.
-FL
This has happened before. June, 1979 to be exact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZjMP8YdNbg
I don't know if this is evidence of one of the endless time-loops running all around and through us all the time which nobody seems to notice, or just a lot of retarded people running on automatic programming playing their roles, but this is nearly an exact replay of an event which happened thirty-one years ago.
-FL
Religions are organized systems of beliefs you subscribe to and group around and wave flags and generally stop thinking in lieu of somebody else's instructions in some bullshit codex.
Spirituality is something altogether different. Spirituality is an umbrella term which describes the human relationship with the spirit realm; everything beyond and outside the direct reach of the material world. It encompasses the soul, with the forces which Astrological observations pivot upon, it deals with the Kung Fu concept of 'energy'. Ghosts and spirit communication. All that stuff. That's spirituality.
Religions are simply rule systems which try to codify all that stuff, then pervert it into a means of keeping priests in food and gold and the people enslaved.
Religion and Spirituality are polar opposites! This is really important to understand. One is a perversion of the other.
Any scientist who is not living in wonder of the unseen and (as yet) unanswered is blocked.
And here's the best part. Science can be used to understand the spirit realm! (And I'm not talking about blindly dismissing phenomena as arbitrary clouds of swamp gas.) Basically, if it exists, (which the spirit realm does indeed), then it can be studied and worked with in a rational manner. Religion HATES that idea, because it means the priests are no longer the gate keepers, but the power is granted to anybody who THINKS. Religious leaders thus have a vested interest in keeping the argument burning and unresolved.
Religion is evil.
Science is good. Period.
I wish there were more real scientists who didn't block out the spirit realm because of petty fears. It sounds like there are a lot of cowards out there who need to bone up and say what they think. Honest science cannot be performed when one is worried about what peers will think of your thoughts and conclusions. Science is all about proclaiming new things which haven't been proclaimed before! You can't afford to have emotional limits placed on that. We don't know where Truth will turn up next, but people act as though they already know all the possible manifestations of truth. Science is supposed to cut through that conflicted tangle, and when it's done right, it does.
-FL
Now THAT'S squeezing blood from a stone! That's like making soldiers pay for their own body armor!
The "Hurt Locker" was a piece of PROPAGANDA, and they're trying to terrorize viewers who failed to pay before consuming the state's message?
The Gall! The Cheek! The Nerve! The Douglas Adams-ness of the whole thing!
I'm at a loss for (more) words.
-FL