They may have to hire ex-FBI and ex-SAS people and fly them all over the world, and work the diplomatic circuit when some country needs to be leaned on to get cooperation. But it would be cheaper than adding whole buildings full of servers just to handle the spam.
I'm not altogether convinced the spammers aren't working under the direction of the guys in black suits and sun glasses.
That is, if the web becomes annoying enough, it will be easier to justify massive government internet oversight and control.
We all know it's coming. Maybe with even with barbed wire and machine guns if we're somewhat less than fortunate.
I find that alcohol is a great drug also and I hate to disappoint you but it's even better than tobacco. When I used to drink 2/3 bottle of corporate produced vodka per night I had terrible headaches in the morning. However, now I drink only pure liquor distilled from organic corn mash by a neighbor. It comes from a copper still with pure lead solder, not the corporate lead that has so many heavy metals in it.
Ha ha.
While this is cute, and your point is taken, I hope you aren't laboring under the assumption that the point is a particularly good one. I am going to assume you are smart enough to know why the argument, (if it was meant as such), is flawed, but if you are not please let me know and I'll connect all the little dots for you.
If you have some evidence you'd like to present, some reference to some study that's properly done, provide it. Calling me childish because I don't buy into your pet paranoia will accomplish nothing. Neither will pointing out the obvious but irrelevant fact that governments and corporations often lie. The mere fact that they *might* have an incentive to lie about this *if* there were a problem doesn't mean that there is a problem. They'd have plenty of incentive to lie about caches of alien technology in the Nevada desert, but I don't believe that either. Do you?
I hope you will forgive me for speaking in a way which you found hurtful. It was uncalled for, and I certainly apologize. I am sorry.
As for the effects shown in studies. . .
The blood-brain barrier becomes permeable when exposed to EM cell phone frequencies. This has been shown by injecting dye into the blood of rats and exposing them to cell phone EM. The short version: control groups don't end up with dyed brains while the exposed groups do. This effect has been seen numerous times.
and here's an original post from another prominant researcher, Allen Frey, regarding his own experiments in the area.
And here is perhaps one of the most interesting. . . An excerpt I scanned from a book on the subject; the notes are regarding something called, cyclotronic resonance, an electromagnetic mechanic which shows one likely candidate for how certain chemicals manage to cross the Blood Brain Barrier when the subject is exposed to an EM field. . .
Also. . . here's an interesting article on how the original experimenter, Henry Lai, has been repeatedly made the subject of Motorola's efforts to discredit his work in sneaky ways.
I have only provided links and thoughts regarding one of the simpler points, (blood-brain barrier permeability), as it is relatively easy to reference. There are a lot of other fascinating elements worth taking into consideration.
Congratulations, you appear to be very healthy. You also hit the good numbers in the genetic lottery and have no congenital defects/chronic illnesses/hereditary conditions/disabilities that need treatment.
Like what? I can think of only a few examples of conditions/medicines which might actually be necessary.
Asthma is one. I can see a need for pain killers and maybe hormone treatments to ease things like menopause, and for use in birth control, (though a woman can choose to exercise her will power over whether or not her body accepts fertilization, though few people realize this again thanks to centuries of programming. What a mind-job on humanity!). I can think of allergy medicines and snake-bite and poison antidotes. . . Also vaccines, but only when they are responsibly used by agencies which don't want to experiment on/poison the population with secondary additives, as they generally do. Beyond that. . , I start coming up short.
Most other conditions I can think of are typically the result of ignorance, body mis-management or internal emotional baggage and can be solved through knowledge rather than drugs. Good genetics don't have much to do with it.
Also, tobacco is bad for you when smoked, even if you don't see the effects right now. I smoked for eight years and never had a cough, but that means nothing.
Well, we certainly keep on being told this, don't we?
And I'd believe it too, given that the stuff being tested is corporate tobacco which is full of known poisons, as well as radium (from phosphate based fertilizers), and if you were smoking filtered cigarettes, then your lungs will also have a number of 3 micron-large fibers from the filters, (covered with toxic tar) lodged in your lungs. Sure, that stuff has the potential to make you sick. But pure tobacco? Sorry. I don't see any good reason to believe the negative hype, and I've looked at all of it. --And I researched it all before I tried, mind-you. If I thought there was a real danger, I certainly wouldn't have bothered.
Honestly. The last drug I used was tobacco a couple of weeks ago when I was feeling angry and depressed when my girlfriend fell in love with another guy and started sleeping with him, and I was not able to manage my negative emotions using any other techniques.
Tobacco is a good tool when you're stuck, (that is, when the leaf is organic and un-mixed with a bunch of corporate kill-you chemicals and you burn it in a pipe and not with paper). It makes it much easier to choose against negative emotions like jealousy and such. --I really understand now why Natives Americans used it whenever they sat down to meet in talks with other tribes. It's an amazing drug; raises intelligence, brain speed, memory functions, and it pretty much turns off anger and jealousy if you ask it to.
Strangest of all, I found anyway, it's not addictive. --I know that chemically it's supposed to be, I've read the science behind it and don't dis-believe it, but I spent a couple of months in the Summer smoking every day and then stopped because it suddenly felt unnecessary for me. Cravings? None at all. It's nearly Christmas now and I've used it maybe six times since August. The Summer of Smoke was an interesting experience which I felt like exploring after I learned that Tobacco had all these un-officially recognized health, mental and spiritual benefits, and that it was not even toxic if you used uncorrputed tobacco and worked hard enough to ignore the mountains of social programming we've undergone as a culture. (Burning things = Cancer). --I never even coughed or felt fleghmy, (though I certainly did when I tried a corporate cigarette as a contrasting experiment! Man, what a difference! The corporate stuff made me feel really sick and crazy and made my heart race and I sweated like a pig. What a difference 500+ extra additive chemicals make. Yuck!).
I began to wonder about tobacco when I started thinking about governments and how they lie pretty much about everything, and especially when I learned which government it happened to be that first began an anti-smoking propaganda campaign. (It was the freekin' Nazis! Not really a big surprise, but I was still taken aback.)
It struck me that it is definitely to the benefit of a government which likes to sell war to its people to remove from the populace an inexpensive drug which calms negative emotions and makes people smarter and more perceptive; a drug to which people are subconsciously drawn, which I think might account for some of the 'addictive' properties. But that's just my opinion.
Anyway. . .
As for Corporate pharmaceuticals. . . Geez. . . I guess the last thing I used was an anti-biotic maybe ten years ago. So who uses drugs?
I lead a clean life, both mentally and physically, I avoid toxic foods and I drink clean well-water with no fluoridation and the benefits show. I'm super-healthy and feel great. I think most of the problems treated by drugs these days wouldn't be there in the first place if people lived smart. Who buys all these drugs anyway, and how did they get so sick? Start dealing with your internal stuff and the whole question of the drug market falls away into unimportance.
You want something other than Wikipedia, then. Wikipedia isn't a general database project. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't present every wacko theory ever espoused, giving equal time to each, they present the common, widespread, consensus opinions. Of course, there are wikipedia articles that do end up looking like general database projects, but those are problems to be fixed, not articles to be emulated.
Well now, the problem is that, especially with regard to Cell Phone Radiation, the "common, widespread, consensus opinions", (as opposed to facts, I note), is a hotly pursued bit of real estate when it comes to such huge corporate/military projects to merge certain systems with the human race. Public belief is a very powerful tool if you can make it work for you, which is why governments spend so much on propaganda, and why corporations do the same thing under the flag of advertising and public relations.
--Which is why I want to see the other side of the story; because there is absolutely NO reason to believe that governments, the military, and corporations are telling us the truth with regard to Cell Phone radiation, (and a multitude of other topics, for that matter), while there IS plenty of evidence that they lie to us regularly with the intent to cause harm for their own benefit.
A public knowledge base like Wikipedia is a perfect place for people to learn about REAL things, as opposed to the publicly popular lies as inserted by propaganda and expensive ad campaigning.
In the case of the article in question, it does, in fact, present nearly every wacko theory ever espoused, and then proceeds to provide the scientific studies that address the theories. The studies generally undermine the theories but the tone is neutral and the language sufficiently dense that I worry that people won't realize that the theories are debunked.
See? Now that's a successful sales job! The studies you mention were bought by groups with conflict of interest while the non-partisan studies were left out. Doesn't that say something to you? Obviously not, if you consider the theories in question to be 'wacko', and to have been 'debunked'. Debunked? That's a fear-filled term, and it's not true. When a criminal shakes its head and says, "No, I'm not doing anything wrong," a accusation is not 'debunked'. If you truly did any research, if you truly bothered to think about the motivations involved by those claiming safety, you would recognize this rather quickly.
It sounds to me that rather than look reality in the face and try to plumb its not-always so pretty depths, you instead prefer to live in a warm, fuzzy illusion where corporations and governments never lie, and you want this illusion to be reflected by official culture as represented by public knowledge bases like Wikipedia so that you won't have to be bothered by worrisome ideas which ask you to take responsibility for yourself.
Conservative thinkers are always fearful children when you boil away the surrounding confusion.
If you worked for me and started saying that I would fire you. I just want the job done. Don't forget for one second that computers are popular because they enable business. The owner or boss just wants the job done. Microsoft has a great platform for that. There is so much support for the Microsoft platform, it's a no brainer for most business owners. Whining about monopoly tactics, or what you personally prefer, what you run at home, etc doesn't matter. The world doesn't revolve around you, linux, or free software. The world is run on money
Fire me? Ha. I run my own company exactly so that I wouldn't have to work for people who think in the ways you outline. The world is run on money? No. Not at all. Not even close. Money is simply one form of power, and when you let it become an imbalanced force in your life, your life starts to look pretty lame. The world is filled with misery because the people who believe money is everything have been allowed to take charge; people who don't care how the job is done, just as long as the money flows.
"Whining" about monopoly tactics? You might want to be careful with your verb use. Those who believe in hurting others for personal gain typically try to ridicule entirely valid objections. People who oppose torture have been accused of "Whining".
Oh, no actually, that's not quite true, hence the 1200+ posts here.
People like a winner who doesn't play foul ball, over and over and over. Right from the outset, Gates has been a Machiavellian creep. His history is long and slime-filled.
And Microsoft doesn't create the market in which there will always be a demand for skilled workers. Companies are always going to need computers. What Microsoft happens to do is to monopolize that market. --Work would still need doing no matter who was leading the way. People who complain do so because they can see the potential which could be realized if only there were a better managed system in control which made higher quality works and made morally sound decisions. The result of Machiavellian tactics is that people have their spirits crushed into unnatural shapes, and that means everybody has their light dimmed. Nobody can be at their best. Luckily, there are other systems which are not corrupt, and they steadily grow stronger and better organizes. The dark side takes you to a lot of power very quickly, but it also corrupts and thus can never reach the same potential as the forces of light. And yes, that may sound fanatical, but it's also accurate. (Dark = selfish and manipulative, Light = Service to Others oriented. Simple as that.)
So, do I throw my support behind a sociopath like Gates and hope that maybe I'm special and he won't try to take advantage of me, or should I throw my support behind community collective movements which seek to create a positive world? Microsoft's basic tendency is to create a reality where computers control people, not the other way around. I'll support the other side of that argument every day of the week. And that might seem fanatical, but it also might seem like common sense.
There is a great antidote to some of that confusion: Debunking 9/11 Myths [popularmechanics.com]
Oh boy. That article is so incredibly broken I forget to debunk it sometimes because I can't believe anybody takes it seriously.
I'm not even going to bother with links. Go look up the de-bunking yourself. It'll take you like thirty seconds. --The one point I will mention from memory is that Popular Mechanics did their research in several parts by calling up the Pentagon to ask if the people accusing the military were right or not on a variety of points. When the accused said, "No." Popular Science took that as a defacto truth and called it a successful debunking.
How ridiculous is that? The accusers are pointing the finger at the military. If the military is really up to wrong-doing, then of course they're not going to give honest answers. A real journalist recognizes this blazingly obvious fact and seeks to find information from third parties. Popular Mechanics didn't do this, probably because they haven't clicked yet to the fact that the government has a long track record of lying. Either that, or the Popular Mechanics editors have family on the Homeland Secuity staff.
As for all those other wins for the good guys you linked to? Geez. You're also taking the media and government announcements at face value. There's something we call 'conflict of interest' which makes doing that a dubious practice at best. The media is owned by the very, very wealthy, who in turn own the government, and those people WANT there to be a war. That means very little the media says, especially with regard to terrorism, can be taken at face value. --And I know a number of journalists in both print and television who tell me this directly and cite numerous personal examples of how the truth molded to suit the state.
If such a leading luminary of non-violent daydreams as John Carmack says it's possible, then hey, it has to be real, right?
Thank-you again, Mr. Carmack, for stepping in at the appropriate moment to provide the world with yet another on-ramp toward hostility, and this time while claiming the high ground. I don't know what's worse, that you sound earnest and convincing, or that you are well-respected enough among the circles of geekdom to actually have an effect upon the status quo. Ugh, either way. Just go back to making your, 'de-sensitize-the-hot-young-bucks-in-time-for-war' murder games, please. The situation in the real world is messed up enough as it is.
Whatever the case. . .
Dudes with bombs and box-cutters working independently is still the false reality which needs to be understood here. The myth of terrorists is the preferred tool for building the fascist state. Luckily, this is increasingly well understood. It's the 'How' which seems to be causing some hiccups.
I've heard every well-meaning argument in the book. --One of the main contenders being, "Well, if you continue to oppress a people, eventually they will rise up! It's the only way left to them."
Semi-true on one level, but still. . . Fascist empire builders have agendas to keep and can't really be expected to wait around for angry oppressed individuals from far away to blow up airliners on schedule. So how does the war machine kick it into gear?
--It would certainly go a distance in explaining the actions of some of the supposedly fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the prelude to the grand 9-11 performance acting in ways most un-Islamic. (Booze and Cocaine and Women won't win the devout many points with Allah.) So what's the story here? Were they fundamentalist terrorists, or were they dupe mercenaries who didn't know what they were signing up for, and who were allowed to bring off their clutzy plan while the US secret services conveniently looked the other way, while the secret/shadow government provided access to the remote controlled jets actually capable of performing the precision flying which badly-trained mercenary goof-balls could not have been asked to manage, and while the Israeli-owned security companies which held contracts at each of the airports involved during 9-11, gave them fast-lane service at the boarding check points?
Well, I can't say pardner, but I do know that when you're calling those kinds of shots, you're in the High Country!
-FL
"President Bush revealed today there is a shadow government run by people who live outside of Washington in bunkers in case Washington was ever attacked. I thought the shadow government was the one Enron bought with all those contributions." --Jay Leno
Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, but I couldn't figure out anything about them other than that they are registered to some company called "Omictron Technologies LTD" on the Whois listing.
All searches past that point turned up little, other than a nanotech instruments company called "Omicron" which may or may not be the same company. --That and a company which appears to be working on a project with a bunch of other big European partners to make the web accessible for the blind.
But other than that. . . Who are these people exactly, and what was their motivation in running a science news site? Is it similar to Slashdot's origin but the idea is to promote the popularity (and sales) of nanotech related technology?
If that's the case, then I guess editors with a bias against hydrogen energy may simply be the unforseen fallout from a grassroots PR project.
Who's gonna unclog my toilet in thie "free culture"?
You. Free culture means learning how to carry your own weight.
If you actually have honest plumbing problems beyond just cleaning up after yourself, I know a couple of guys who really take pride in being excellent plumbers. They enjoy being good at what they do, and they don't think of the job as something which diminishes their sense of self-worth. But if you think of plumbing as something which makes a person less valuable, then I imagine it might be somewhat difficult to find help in bailing yourself out when when the pipes burst.
You clearly have absolutely no familiarity with the underlying structure of how any computer architecture works, so going around saying that engineers need to get their act together... that's just extremely naive.
Yes, there are legacy systems that sometimes hinder progress (like the PCI bus). And yes, you could haphazardly improve the interface. However, in the long run you're going to pay because you're going to have 50 vendors providing their "extreme" interface that improves performance but doesn't work with have the cards on the market.
I don't think I'm naive in this regard, and you just described exactly the constraints which are placed upon engineers; Discordant market forces demanding engineers design hardware according to out-moded specs rather than allowing them to design according to what today's integrated circuits can actually do.
Getting one's act together is not necessarily an individual thing. It might be thought of as a world-wide endeavor. --If everybody would stop running in infernal circles and pull together, thus getting their acts working TOGETHER in a very literal sense, imagine what could be achieved. (For my part, I imagine ditching backwards compatability, putting rechargeable batteries inside PC's, using decent operating systems which don't crash, and employing solid state EPROMs using today's Flash-style memory for hosting drivers and OS's and such.)
What makes you think we're constrained? Believe me, if I could figure out some new way to build a better computer, I'd do it. And I'd be a billionaire, too.
Some engineers are constrained by limitations inflicted upon them. Others simply cannot see over the edges of the ever-lovin' proverbial box of small-thinking.
For starters. . .
1. Stop building computers around crappy O.S.'s (An outside constraint if there ever was one!)
2. Put the O.S. on a nice fast EPROM. All hardware drivers can similarly be put on secondary Flash-style memory chips and they would only change when the hardware is updated. Whatever needs to be loaded into faster memory can do so after start-up.
3. Don't power down by default! Put a big Lith-ion battery inside every box and keep the memory on-line, or partially on-line. When was the last time anybody powered off for more than a month? If you need to re-boot from scratch, make it a secondary option.
There. That's three ideas which would provide a lot of elbow room to solve problems, and I'm not even an engineer. Heck, give me another ten minutes and I'll think up three more useful ideas. So where's my billion dollars?
But seriously, I'm assuming that I'm not the only one who can think of useful ideas which could make life easier. No. There are lots of smart people out there. So instead I'm assuming that there is something preventing smart people from implementing useful changes; I'm going to blame the system, which I find far more satisfying than thinking that the world is populated by morons.
Back when I was a kid, I ran a cute little TRS-80 Color Computer. It had an on/off button. You pressed it, and it was on and ready to go. You pressed it again, and it was off, nice and tidy. Yeah, it had only 32 kb, but hey. It was fast.
Today I have an HP Jornada 820 built in 1999. It runs Windows CE, and it turns on faster than anything. You hit the on/off button and you are either on or off just like that. --Best of all, it holds open all of your documents and programs exactly as you left them. I feel confident not saving stuff because it's so rock-steady reliable. The little critter is run on Flash memory; no hard drives.
My PC. . ? Well now. . , that beast is slow. Very slow.
I thought electrons moved at the speed of light, so what's the hold up? I refuse to blame the hard drives; those things are usually faster than Flash memory. So what's up? Bloat-ware? Too much hardware to configure? Poor programming? All of the above?
I don't know, but I suspect that if engineers had their act together and were not constrained by the ridiculous way of doing things which are currently in place, we'd have much better machines available.
I'm all for flexibility in language and allowing for natural patterns of evolution. The French embarrass themselves every now and then by trying to disallow such evolution saying that 'Language is a code. It must not be tampered with!'
--As if French or English, or any language in the world for that matter, sprang into being fully conceived, or worse, that the current state of a given language is by some holy decree, its final, perfect form. That's just Ego and Fear talking.
But honestly, the word 'Truthiness' is not one I'll ever find myself using in earnest, because it was invented through a sense of irony to make fun of Brain-dead Texans with Too Much Power.
It's not a word. It's a joke. And a bitter one, at that.
But if it somehow, (*cough* through ignorance *cough*), it does become a well-used word without any sense of irony attached, then so be it. But honestly, the word doesn't roll off the tongue or really describe something desperate for description enough to affect the public popular lexicon any time soon, IMHO.
Now, can we talk about something else? This whole non-issue reminds me of the banal stupidity of the whole Political Correctness thing; that is, it's too retarded for words and should be stamped out immediately so that it doesn't piss everybody off and waste enormous amounts of time and energy.
What's funny is that I'd agree with this statement, but because I think the article errs on the side of being alarmist.
A good article is supposed to present information from as many relevant facets on a topic as possible. This one was filled with data primarily from the 'cell phones are safe' camp and left out almost everything from the opposing camp. That's hardly responsible for a general database project. If I read a Wikipedia article, I want to see the full scope of information available from every perspective so that I can choose what to think. If I want opinionated and editorialized information, I'll read a blog or a magazine. Data bases are supposed to be richly detailed and unbiased.
I love how names illustrate truth on many levels, and this one is great!
Nicholas Negroponte's name is cool.
Latin = pontis French = pont Italian = ponte Spanish = puente Catalan = pont Portuguese = ponte Romanian = punte English = Bridge
Thus his name breaks down into, Negro-Bridge, an apt name for a man fighting to provide a way to allow third world kids onto the first world communications grid. Cool, huh?
Using names to see the deeper meaning in people works surprisingly well in many examples. (The dumbest and crudest of which, (and it's appropriate that it's crude and dumb), is that George Bush becomes a 'pussy').
But how about this fellow, Jon Camfield, quoted in the article who is raising deliberate FUD with regard to the $100 laptop plan? (What's his problem, anyway?)
Well, let's break down his name and see what we get. . .
Cam + Field
The definition of 'Cam' is, "An eccentric or multiply curved wheel mounted on a rotating shaft, used to produce variable or reciprocating motion in another engaged or contacted part."
So a 'Cam' creates a rotating, variable motion when connected, 'bridged' to another part? Add that concept to the word, 'Field'.
So. . , a Field which is attached to something rotating and variable?
Or perhaps a Field which is not level.
Interesting, eh? One guy is making a bridge while the other opposes level playing fields.
I'm rightfully skeptical of cutting edge neuroscience published in IEEE, Antenna's & Propagation.
So, be skeptical. But don't be lazy. --Read the article and then do some more searching based on what you find there. If you are smart and diligent, you will be able to find supporting material or counter-claims which will solidify your knowledge in the subject. But please, (and I see this all the time), you cannot expect people to do your work for you. Learning is a personal journey. The old stand-by, "You must provide proof of claim," is only partly valid. Far too many use it as an excuse for personal laziness. Yes, proof is useful, but it is not actually owed to anybody. If a claim is interesting, it is up to each of us to research it. This is one of the reasons I like Slashdot so much; it provides a networking forum.
In that spirit, here are some more links you might look at with regard to the blood brain barrier. . .
and here's an actual post from another prominant researcher, Allen Frey, regarding his own experiments in the area.
And here is perhaps the most interesting. . . An excerpt I scanned from a book on the subject; the notes are regarding something called, cyclotronic resonance, an electromagnetic mechanic which shows one likely candidate for how certain chemicals manage to cross the Blood Brain Barrier when the subject is exposed to an EM field. . .
"In 1985, Dr. Carl Blackman of the EPA and Dr. Abraham Liboff of Oakland University, working independently, integrated the reports of Jafary-Asl and the attempts to duplicate Bawin and Adey's experiments. They concluded that the strength of the local steady-state magnetic field of the Earth at the site of each of the laboratories was the hidden variable that determined the different frequencies reported."
Also. . . here's an interesting article on how the original experimenter, Henry Lai, has been repeatedly undermined by Motorola in an effort to discredit his work.
Yep. You're right. I was incorrect in stating that the exact experiment with rats performed by Henry Lai was duplicated. That was bad writing, and I was regretting it the instant I hit 'Submit'. --I should have been more specific in saying that the effect has been repeated numerous times. The actual experiment with rats has only been performed by Henry Lai.
However, blood-brain barrier permeability due to EM radiation has been demonstrated numerous times.
and here's an actual post from another prominant researcher, Allen Frey, regarding his own experiments in the area.
And here is perhaps the most interesting. . . An excerpt I scanned from a book on the subject; the notes are regarding something called, cyclotronic resonance, an electromagnetic mechanic which shows one likely candidate for how certain chemicals manage to cross the Blood Brain Barrier when the subject is exposed to an EM field. . .
"In 1985, Dr. Carl Blackman of the EPA and Dr. Abraham Liboff of Oakland University, working independently, integrated the reports of Jafary-Asl and the attempts to duplicate Bawin and Adey's experiments. They concluded that the strength of the local steady-state magnetic field of the Earth at the site of each of the laboratories was the hidden variable that determined the different frequencies reported."
Also. . . here's an interesting article on how the original experimenter, Henry Lai, has been repeatedly undermined by Motorola in an effort to discredit his work.
Except that you do. Deja vu is not so much the 'been here before' feeling itself, but the accompanying eerie feeling caused by feeling familiarity where there should be none. At least, that is how I understand it works; feeling familiar with being in your kitchen doesn't trigger any eerieness since it's completely expected to feel familiar.
Fair enough, but the reason I picked my kitchen as the example was that I have three times in the last couple of months, felt exactly that eerie feeling of familiarity upon entering my kitchen. --A room I visit dozens of times each day, (it's between my bedroom and everything else in the house.) So why those arbitrary three times and none of the hundreds of others?
There's no easy answer, of course, but the point I am making is that it is not quite so simple a phenomenon as just stored memories making matches. There's some other mechanic at work.
Please pardon the bold face, but it seems this subject calls for it. . .
The blood-brain barrier becomes permeable when exposed to EM cell phone frequencies. This is shown by injecting dye into the blood of rats and exposing them to cell phone EM. The short version: control groups don't end up with dyed brains while the exposed groups do. This experiment has been repeated numerous times.
--Now aside from an artificially permeable blood-brain barrier making your brain more susceptible to whatever agents happen to be in your blood at the time, the really interesting question people should be instantly asking is, "How does cell phone EM cause this to happen?"
And better yet, "What OTHER cellular responses are stimulated by cell phone EM?"
This isn't rocket science. It's simply a matter of taking the data as it comes, remembering it as you read more articles, and applying it in a logical fashion to form more questions.
Why the heck is everybody so caught up by the Cancer question when there is OBVIOUSLY something else important going on?
People want to believe in this stuff cause it sounds dangerous. Advocacy groups get funding, lawyers make money, politicians can scare people. Who's gonna listen to a bunch of boring Danish statistics?
Wow. I've come across some biased Wikipedia articles before, but the one you referenced sets a new low. It's current version, (with a single exception in non-bolded typeface buried in a paragraph), only mentioned studies which illustrate the safety of cell phone tech, and it does this using bolded headline entries. This is a shamefully poor representation of the available data on the subject. The article also fails to mention any of the many cases of conflict of interest which pollute many of the studies which claim safety. That's just pathetic and Wikipedia needs a solid re-write on this one.
I don't think the claims being made are bullshit, as you suggest, and I certainly am not motivated in my opinions because I like 'dangerous' sounding things. I just don't trust the telcos or the military, and there is plenty of reason not to. Anybody who argues differently is, in my opinion, either ignorant or willfully ignorant. It's the second variety of ignorance which baffles me.
I think the experience is based more on a deeper instinctive reaction, (I think instincts are connected to unconscious levels of awareness as well as memories from past lives), and that the experience of Deja Vu is triggered by odd happenings in the time stream which a deeper part of a person notices but cannot rationalize. --That is, time is not linear, and our passage through it can be manipulated by beings which exist beyond our awareness.
--I know. Occam would have a fit. But Occam was also a monk who was satisfied that his theory was useful in finding proof of god, so one should accept that his logical razor leans heavily upon one's experiential biases. Example: If you have never experienced telephones or the supporting technology upon which our telecom systems rely, then is it more rational to assume that people have invented a world-spanning telephone system or that you are simply being lied to by the person making such a claim?
It's all about perspective. The less you know, the more statements must be taken as assumptions, which serve to invalidate them in Occam's equation. Thus, it can be fairly said that Occam rewards ignorance by logically validating inadequate explanations.
Thank-you. --You can buy a copy of my CD at the end of the show.
I thought this too, but began wondering why I don't get that "Been here before" feeling every time I enter a situation I really have been in before. Like my kitchen. Or when I'm watching a re-run.
This is not to say that Deja Vu does not also sometimes happen under just those sorts of circumstances, but it seems rather too arbitrary.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not altogether convinced the spammers aren't working under the direction of the guys in black suits and sun glasses.
That is, if the web becomes annoying enough, it will be easier to justify massive government internet oversight and control.
We all know it's coming. Maybe with even with barbed wire and machine guns if we're somewhat less than fortunate.
-FL
Ha ha.
While this is cute, and your point is taken, I hope you aren't laboring under the assumption that the point is a particularly good one. I am going to assume you are smart enough to know why the argument, (if it was meant as such), is flawed, but if you are not please let me know and I'll connect all the little dots for you.
Bottoms up!
-FL
I hope you will forgive me for speaking in a way which you found hurtful. It was uncalled for, and I certainly apologize. I am sorry.
As for the effects shown in studies. . .
The blood-brain barrier becomes permeable when exposed to EM cell phone frequencies. This has been shown by injecting dye into the blood of rats and exposing them to cell phone EM. The short version: control groups don't end up with dyed brains while the exposed groups do. This effect has been seen numerous times.
here
here
and here
and here's an original post from another prominant researcher, Allen Frey, regarding his own experiments in the area.
And here is perhaps one of the most interesting. . . An excerpt I scanned from a book on the subject; the notes are regarding something called, cyclotronic resonance, an electromagnetic mechanic which shows one likely candidate for how certain chemicals manage to cross the Blood Brain Barrier when the subject is exposed to an EM field. . .
Also. . . here's an interesting article on how the original experimenter, Henry Lai, has been repeatedly made the subject of Motorola's efforts to discredit his work in sneaky ways.
I have only provided links and thoughts regarding one of the simpler points, (blood-brain barrier permeability), as it is relatively easy to reference. There are a lot of other fascinating elements worth taking into consideration.
I hope this is helpful.
-FL
Like what? I can think of only a few examples of conditions/medicines which might actually be necessary.
Asthma is one. I can see a need for pain killers and maybe hormone treatments to ease things like menopause, and for use in birth control, (though a woman can choose to exercise her will power over whether or not her body accepts fertilization, though few people realize this again thanks to centuries of programming. What a mind-job on humanity!). I can think of allergy medicines and snake-bite and poison antidotes. . . Also vaccines, but only when they are responsibly used by agencies which don't want to experiment on/poison the population with secondary additives, as they generally do. Beyond that. . , I start coming up short.
Most other conditions I can think of are typically the result of ignorance, body mis-management or internal emotional baggage and can be solved through knowledge rather than drugs. Good genetics don't have much to do with it.
Also, tobacco is bad for you when smoked, even if you don't see the effects right now. I smoked for eight years and never had a cough, but that means nothing.
Well, we certainly keep on being told this, don't we?
And I'd believe it too, given that the stuff being tested is corporate tobacco which is full of known poisons, as well as radium (from phosphate based fertilizers), and if you were smoking filtered cigarettes, then your lungs will also have a number of 3 micron-large fibers from the filters, (covered with toxic tar) lodged in your lungs. Sure, that stuff has the potential to make you sick. But pure tobacco? Sorry. I don't see any good reason to believe the negative hype, and I've looked at all of it. --And I researched it all before I tried, mind-you. If I thought there was a real danger, I certainly wouldn't have bothered.
-FL
Tobacco is a good tool when you're stuck, (that is, when the leaf is organic and un-mixed with a bunch of corporate kill-you chemicals and you burn it in a pipe and not with paper). It makes it much easier to choose against negative emotions like jealousy and such. --I really understand now why Natives Americans used it whenever they sat down to meet in talks with other tribes. It's an amazing drug; raises intelligence, brain speed, memory functions, and it pretty much turns off anger and jealousy if you ask it to.
Strangest of all, I found anyway, it's not addictive. --I know that chemically it's supposed to be, I've read the science behind it and don't dis-believe it, but I spent a couple of months in the Summer smoking every day and then stopped because it suddenly felt unnecessary for me. Cravings? None at all. It's nearly Christmas now and I've used it maybe six times since August. The Summer of Smoke was an interesting experience which I felt like exploring after I learned that Tobacco had all these un-officially recognized health, mental and spiritual benefits, and that it was not even toxic if you used uncorrputed tobacco and worked hard enough to ignore the mountains of social programming we've undergone as a culture. (Burning things = Cancer). --I never even coughed or felt fleghmy, (though I certainly did when I tried a corporate cigarette as a contrasting experiment! Man, what a difference! The corporate stuff made me feel really sick and crazy and made my heart race and I sweated like a pig. What a difference 500+ extra additive chemicals make. Yuck!).
I began to wonder about tobacco when I started thinking about governments and how they lie pretty much about everything, and especially when I learned which government it happened to be that first began an anti-smoking propaganda campaign. (It was the freekin' Nazis! Not really a big surprise, but I was still taken aback.)
It struck me that it is definitely to the benefit of a government which likes to sell war to its people to remove from the populace an inexpensive drug which calms negative emotions and makes people smarter and more perceptive; a drug to which people are subconsciously drawn, which I think might account for some of the 'addictive' properties. But that's just my opinion.
Anyway. . .
As for Corporate pharmaceuticals. . . Geez. . . I guess the last thing I used was an anti-biotic maybe ten years ago. So who uses drugs?
I lead a clean life, both mentally and physically, I avoid toxic foods and I drink clean well-water with no fluoridation and the benefits show. I'm super-healthy and feel great. I think most of the problems treated by drugs these days wouldn't be there in the first place if people lived smart. Who buys all these drugs anyway, and how did they get so sick? Start dealing with your internal stuff and the whole question of the drug market falls away into unimportance.
-FL
Well now, the problem is that, especially with regard to Cell Phone Radiation, the "common, widespread, consensus opinions", (as opposed to facts, I note), is a hotly pursued bit of real estate when it comes to such huge corporate/military projects to merge certain systems with the human race. Public belief is a very powerful tool if you can make it work for you, which is why governments spend so much on propaganda, and why corporations do the same thing under the flag of advertising and public relations.
--Which is why I want to see the other side of the story; because there is absolutely NO reason to believe that governments, the military, and corporations are telling us the truth with regard to Cell Phone radiation, (and a multitude of other topics, for that matter), while there IS plenty of evidence that they lie to us regularly with the intent to cause harm for their own benefit.
A public knowledge base like Wikipedia is a perfect place for people to learn about REAL things, as opposed to the publicly popular lies as inserted by propaganda and expensive ad campaigning.
In the case of the article in question, it does, in fact, present nearly every wacko theory ever espoused, and then proceeds to provide the scientific studies that address the theories. The studies generally undermine the theories but the tone is neutral and the language sufficiently dense that I worry that people won't realize that the theories are debunked.
See? Now that's a successful sales job! The studies you mention were bought by groups with conflict of interest while the non-partisan studies were left out. Doesn't that say something to you? Obviously not, if you consider the theories in question to be 'wacko', and to have been 'debunked'. Debunked? That's a fear-filled term, and it's not true. When a criminal shakes its head and says, "No, I'm not doing anything wrong," a accusation is not 'debunked'. If you truly did any research, if you truly bothered to think about the motivations involved by those claiming safety, you would recognize this rather quickly.
It sounds to me that rather than look reality in the face and try to plumb its not-always so pretty depths, you instead prefer to live in a warm, fuzzy illusion where corporations and governments never lie, and you want this illusion to be reflected by official culture as represented by public knowledge bases like Wikipedia so that you won't have to be bothered by worrisome ideas which ask you to take responsibility for yourself.
Conservative thinkers are always fearful children when you boil away the surrounding confusion.
-FL
Fire me? Ha. I run my own company exactly so that I wouldn't have to work for people who think in the ways you outline. The world is run on money? No. Not at all. Not even close. Money is simply one form of power, and when you let it become an imbalanced force in your life, your life starts to look pretty lame. The world is filled with misery because the people who believe money is everything have been allowed to take charge; people who don't care how the job is done, just as long as the money flows.
"Whining" about monopoly tactics? You might want to be careful with your verb use. Those who believe in hurting others for personal gain typically try to ridicule entirely valid objections. People who oppose torture have been accused of "Whining".
-FL
Oh, no actually, that's not quite true, hence the 1200+ posts here.
People like a winner who doesn't play foul ball, over and over and over. Right from the outset, Gates has been a Machiavellian creep. His history is long and slime-filled.
And Microsoft doesn't create the market in which there will always be a demand for skilled workers. Companies are always going to need computers. What Microsoft happens to do is to monopolize that market. --Work would still need doing no matter who was leading the way. People who complain do so because they can see the potential which could be realized if only there were a better managed system in control which made higher quality works and made morally sound decisions. The result of Machiavellian tactics is that people have their spirits crushed into unnatural shapes, and that means everybody has their light dimmed. Nobody can be at their best. Luckily, there are other systems which are not corrupt, and they steadily grow stronger and better organizes. The dark side takes you to a lot of power very quickly, but it also corrupts and thus can never reach the same potential as the forces of light. And yes, that may sound fanatical, but it's also accurate. (Dark = selfish and manipulative, Light = Service to Others oriented. Simple as that.)
So, do I throw my support behind a sociopath like Gates and hope that maybe I'm special and he won't try to take advantage of me, or should I throw my support behind community collective movements which seek to create a positive world? Microsoft's basic tendency is to create a reality where computers control people, not the other way around. I'll support the other side of that argument every day of the week. And that might seem fanatical, but it also might seem like common sense.
-FL
Oh boy. That article is so incredibly broken I forget to debunk it sometimes because I can't believe anybody takes it seriously.
I'm not even going to bother with links. Go look up the de-bunking yourself. It'll take you like thirty seconds. --The one point I will mention from memory is that Popular Mechanics did their research in several parts by calling up the Pentagon to ask if the people accusing the military were right or not on a variety of points. When the accused said, "No." Popular Science took that as a defacto truth and called it a successful debunking.
How ridiculous is that? The accusers are pointing the finger at the military. If the military is really up to wrong-doing, then of course they're not going to give honest answers. A real journalist recognizes this blazingly obvious fact and seeks to find information from third parties. Popular Mechanics didn't do this, probably because they haven't clicked yet to the fact that the government has a long track record of lying. Either that, or the Popular Mechanics editors have family on the Homeland Secuity staff.
As for all those other wins for the good guys you linked to? Geez. You're also taking the media and government announcements at face value. There's something we call 'conflict of interest' which makes doing that a dubious practice at best. The media is owned by the very, very wealthy, who in turn own the government, and those people WANT there to be a war. That means very little the media says, especially with regard to terrorism, can be taken at face value. --And I know a number of journalists in both print and television who tell me this directly and cite numerous personal examples of how the truth molded to suit the state.
-FL
If such a leading luminary of non-violent daydreams as John Carmack says it's possible, then hey, it has to be real, right?
Thank-you again, Mr. Carmack, for stepping in at the appropriate moment to provide the world with yet another on-ramp toward hostility, and this time while claiming the high ground. I don't know what's worse, that you sound earnest and convincing, or that you are well-respected enough among the circles of geekdom to actually have an effect upon the status quo. Ugh, either way. Just go back to making your, 'de-sensitize-the-hot-young-bucks-in-time-for-war
Whatever the case. . .
Dudes with bombs and box-cutters working independently is still the false reality which needs to be understood here. The myth of terrorists is the preferred tool for building the fascist state. Luckily, this is increasingly well understood. It's the 'How' which seems to be causing some hiccups.
I've heard every well-meaning argument in the book. --One of the main contenders being, "Well, if you continue to oppress a people, eventually they will rise up! It's the only way left to them."
Semi-true on one level, but still. . . Fascist empire builders have agendas to keep and can't really be expected to wait around for angry oppressed individuals from far away to blow up airliners on schedule. So how does the war machine kick it into gear?
How about a little mind control?
--It would certainly go a distance in explaining the actions of some of the supposedly fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the prelude to the grand 9-11 performance acting in ways most un-Islamic. (Booze and Cocaine and Women won't win the devout many points with Allah.) So what's the story here? Were they fundamentalist terrorists, or were they dupe mercenaries who didn't know what they were signing up for, and who were allowed to bring off their clutzy plan while the US secret services conveniently looked the other way, while the secret/shadow government provided access to the remote controlled jets actually capable of performing the precision flying which badly-trained mercenary goof-balls could not have been asked to manage, and while the Israeli-owned security companies which held contracts at each of the airports involved during 9-11, gave them fast-lane service at the boarding check points?
Well, I can't say pardner, but I do know that when you're calling those kinds of shots, you're in the High Country!
-FL
All searches past that point turned up little, other than a nanotech instruments company called "Omicron" which may or may not be the same company. --That and a company which appears to be working on a project with a bunch of other big European partners to make the web accessible for the blind.
But other than that. . . Who are these people exactly, and what was their motivation in running a science news site? Is it similar to Slashdot's origin but the idea is to promote the popularity (and sales) of nanotech related technology?
If that's the case, then I guess editors with a bias against hydrogen energy may simply be the unforseen fallout from a grassroots PR project.
-FL
You. Free culture means learning how to carry your own weight.
If you actually have honest plumbing problems beyond just cleaning up after yourself, I know a couple of guys who really take pride in being excellent plumbers. They enjoy being good at what they do, and they don't think of the job as something which diminishes their sense of self-worth. But if you think of plumbing as something which makes a person less valuable, then I imagine it might be somewhat difficult to find help in bailing yourself out when when the pipes burst.
-FL
Yes, there are legacy systems that sometimes hinder progress (like the PCI bus). And yes, you could haphazardly improve the interface. However, in the long run you're going to pay because you're going to have 50 vendors providing their "extreme" interface that improves performance but doesn't work with have the cards on the market.
I don't think I'm naive in this regard, and you just described exactly the constraints which are placed upon engineers; Discordant market forces demanding engineers design hardware according to out-moded specs rather than allowing them to design according to what today's integrated circuits can actually do.
Getting one's act together is not necessarily an individual thing. It might be thought of as a world-wide endeavor. --If everybody would stop running in infernal circles and pull together, thus getting their acts working TOGETHER in a very literal sense, imagine what could be achieved. (For my part, I imagine ditching backwards compatability, putting rechargeable batteries inside PC's, using decent operating systems which don't crash, and employing solid state EPROMs using today's Flash-style memory for hosting drivers and OS's and such.)
But that's just crazy talk.
-FL
Some engineers are constrained by limitations inflicted upon them. Others simply cannot see over the edges of the ever-lovin' proverbial box of small-thinking.
For starters. . .
1. Stop building computers around crappy O.S.'s (An outside constraint if there ever was one!)
2. Put the O.S. on a nice fast EPROM. All hardware drivers can similarly be put on secondary Flash-style memory chips and they would only change when the hardware is updated. Whatever needs to be loaded into faster memory can do so after start-up.
3. Don't power down by default! Put a big Lith-ion battery inside every box and keep the memory on-line, or partially on-line. When was the last time anybody powered off for more than a month? If you need to re-boot from scratch, make it a secondary option.
There. That's three ideas which would provide a lot of elbow room to solve problems, and I'm not even an engineer. Heck, give me another ten minutes and I'll think up three more useful ideas. So where's my billion dollars?
But seriously, I'm assuming that I'm not the only one who can think of useful ideas which could make life easier. No. There are lots of smart people out there. So instead I'm assuming that there is something preventing smart people from implementing useful changes; I'm going to blame the system, which I find far more satisfying than thinking that the world is populated by morons.
-FL
Today I have an HP Jornada 820 built in 1999. It runs Windows CE, and it turns on faster than anything. You hit the on/off button and you are either on or off just like that. --Best of all, it holds open all of your documents and programs exactly as you left them. I feel confident not saving stuff because it's so rock-steady reliable. The little critter is run on Flash memory; no hard drives.
My PC. . ? Well now. . , that beast is slow. Very slow.
I thought electrons moved at the speed of light, so what's the hold up? I refuse to blame the hard drives; those things are usually faster than Flash memory. So what's up? Bloat-ware? Too much hardware to configure? Poor programming? All of the above?
I don't know, but I suspect that if engineers had their act together and were not constrained by the ridiculous way of doing things which are currently in place, we'd have much better machines available.
-FL
--As if French or English, or any language in the world for that matter, sprang into being fully conceived, or worse, that the current state of a given language is by some holy decree, its final, perfect form. That's just Ego and Fear talking.
But honestly, the word 'Truthiness' is not one I'll ever find myself using in earnest, because it was invented through a sense of irony to make fun of Brain-dead Texans with Too Much Power.
It's not a word. It's a joke. And a bitter one, at that.
But if it somehow, (*cough* through ignorance *cough*), it does become a well-used word without any sense of irony attached, then so be it. But honestly, the word doesn't roll off the tongue or really describe something desperate for description enough to affect the public popular lexicon any time soon, IMHO.
Now, can we talk about something else? This whole non-issue reminds me of the banal stupidity of the whole Political Correctness thing; that is, it's too retarded for words and should be stamped out immediately so that it doesn't piss everybody off and waste enormous amounts of time and energy.
-FL
A good article is supposed to present information from as many relevant facets on a topic as possible. This one was filled with data primarily from the 'cell phones are safe' camp and left out almost everything from the opposing camp. That's hardly responsible for a general database project. If I read a Wikipedia article, I want to see the full scope of information available from every perspective so that I can choose what to think. If I want opinionated and editorialized information, I'll read a blog or a magazine. Data bases are supposed to be richly detailed and unbiased.
-FL
Nicholas Negroponte's name is cool.
Latin = pontis
French = pont
Italian = ponte
Spanish = puente
Catalan = pont
Portuguese = ponte
Romanian = punte
English = Bridge
Thus his name breaks down into, Negro-Bridge, an apt name for a man fighting to provide a way to allow third world kids onto the first world communications grid. Cool, huh?
Using names to see the deeper meaning in people works surprisingly well in many examples. (The dumbest and crudest of which, (and it's appropriate that it's crude and dumb), is that George Bush becomes a 'pussy').
But how about this fellow, Jon Camfield, quoted in the article who is raising deliberate FUD with regard to the $100 laptop plan? (What's his problem, anyway?)
Well, let's break down his name and see what we get. . .
Cam + Field
The definition of 'Cam' is, "An eccentric or multiply curved wheel mounted on a rotating shaft, used to produce variable or reciprocating motion in another engaged or contacted part."
So a 'Cam' creates a rotating, variable motion when connected, 'bridged' to another part? Add that concept to the word, 'Field'.
So. . , a Field which is attached to something rotating and variable?
Or perhaps a Field which is not level.
Interesting, eh? One guy is making a bridge while the other opposes level playing fields.
-FL
So, be skeptical. But don't be lazy. --Read the article and then do some more searching based on what you find there. If you are smart and diligent, you will be able to find supporting material or counter-claims which will solidify your knowledge in the subject. But please, (and I see this all the time), you cannot expect people to do your work for you. Learning is a personal journey. The old stand-by, "You must provide proof of claim," is only partly valid. Far too many use it as an excuse for personal laziness. Yes, proof is useful, but it is not actually owed to anybody. If a claim is interesting, it is up to each of us to research it. This is one of the reasons I like Slashdot so much; it provides a networking forum.
In that spirit, here are some more links you might look at with regard to the blood brain barrier. . .
here
here
and here
and here's an actual post from another prominant researcher, Allen Frey, regarding his own experiments in the area.
And here is perhaps the most interesting. . . An excerpt I scanned from a book on the subject; the notes are regarding something called, cyclotronic resonance, an electromagnetic mechanic which shows one likely candidate for how certain chemicals manage to cross the Blood Brain Barrier when the subject is exposed to an EM field. . .
"In 1985, Dr. Carl Blackman of the EPA and Dr. Abraham Liboff of Oakland University, working independently, integrated the reports of Jafary-Asl and the attempts to duplicate Bawin and Adey's experiments. They concluded that the strength of the local steady-state magnetic field of the Earth at the site of each of the laboratories was the hidden variable that determined the different frequencies reported."
Also. . .
here's an interesting article on how the original experimenter, Henry Lai, has been repeatedly undermined by Motorola in an effort to discredit his work.
-FL
However, blood-brain barrier permeability due to EM radiation has been demonstrated numerous times.
here
here
and here
and here's an actual post from another prominant researcher, Allen Frey, regarding his own experiments in the area.
And here is perhaps the most interesting. . . An excerpt I scanned from a book on the subject; the notes are regarding something called, cyclotronic resonance, an electromagnetic mechanic which shows one likely candidate for how certain chemicals manage to cross the Blood Brain Barrier when the subject is exposed to an EM field. . .
"In 1985, Dr. Carl Blackman of the EPA and Dr. Abraham Liboff of Oakland University, working independently, integrated the reports of Jafary-Asl and the attempts to duplicate Bawin and Adey's experiments. They concluded that the strength of the local steady-state magnetic field of the Earth at the site of each of the laboratories was the hidden variable that determined the different frequencies reported."
Also. . .
here's an interesting article on how the original experimenter, Henry Lai, has been repeatedly undermined by Motorola in an effort to discredit his work.
-FL
Fair enough, but the reason I picked my kitchen as the example was that I have three times in the last couple of months, felt exactly that eerie feeling of familiarity upon entering my kitchen. --A room I visit dozens of times each day, (it's between my bedroom and everything else in the house.) So why those arbitrary three times and none of the hundreds of others?
There's no easy answer, of course, but the point I am making is that it is not quite so simple a phenomenon as just stored memories making matches. There's some other mechanic at work.
-FL
It's about fuzzing the brain.
Please pardon the bold face, but it seems this subject calls for it. . .
The blood-brain barrier becomes permeable when exposed to EM cell phone frequencies. This is shown by injecting dye into the blood of rats and exposing them to cell phone EM. The short version: control groups don't end up with dyed brains while the exposed groups do. This experiment has been repeated numerous times.
--Now aside from an artificially permeable blood-brain barrier making your brain more susceptible to whatever agents happen to be in your blood at the time, the really interesting question people should be instantly asking is, "How does cell phone EM cause this to happen?"
And better yet, "What OTHER cellular responses are stimulated by cell phone EM?"
This isn't rocket science. It's simply a matter of taking the data as it comes, remembering it as you read more articles, and applying it in a logical fashion to form more questions.
Why the heck is everybody so caught up by the Cancer question when there is OBVIOUSLY something else important going on?
-FL
Wow. I've come across some biased Wikipedia articles before, but the one you referenced sets a new low. It's current version, (with a single exception in non-bolded typeface buried in a paragraph), only mentioned studies which illustrate the safety of cell phone tech, and it does this using bolded headline entries. This is a shamefully poor representation of the available data on the subject. The article also fails to mention any of the many cases of conflict of interest which pollute many of the studies which claim safety. That's just pathetic and Wikipedia needs a solid re-write on this one.
I don't think the claims being made are bullshit, as you suggest, and I certainly am not motivated in my opinions because I like 'dangerous' sounding things. I just don't trust the telcos or the military, and there is plenty of reason not to. Anybody who argues differently is, in my opinion, either ignorant or willfully ignorant. It's the second variety of ignorance which baffles me.
-FL
--I know. Occam would have a fit. But Occam was also a monk who was satisfied that his theory was useful in finding proof of god, so one should accept that his logical razor leans heavily upon one's experiential biases. Example: If you have never experienced telephones or the supporting technology upon which our telecom systems rely, then is it more rational to assume that people have invented a world-spanning telephone system or that you are simply being lied to by the person making such a claim?
It's all about perspective. The less you know, the more statements must be taken as assumptions, which serve to invalidate them in Occam's equation. Thus, it can be fairly said that Occam rewards ignorance by logically validating inadequate explanations.
Thank-you. --You can buy a copy of my CD at the end of the show.
-FL
This is not to say that Deja Vu does not also sometimes happen under just those sorts of circumstances, but it seems rather too arbitrary.
-FL