Hospitals filled with smokers dying of lung cancer? Really?
"lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US."
Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer (who/cdc)
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Edit orial%201-4.html
Now I understand where you're coming from, you must sell cigars or other types of tobacco.
Only 3% may die from lung cancer, but how many die from the complications of lung cancer?
For every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness associated with smoking.
Smoking is also a major factor in coronary heart disease and stroke; may be causally related to malignancies in other parts of the body; and has been linked to a variety of other conditions and disorders, including slowed healing of wounds, infertility, and peptic ulcer disease. For the first time, the Surgeon General includes pneumonia in the list of diseases caused by smoking.
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Smoking is directly responsible for approximately 90 percent of lung cancer deaths and approximately 80-90 percent of COPD (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) deaths.
Secondhand smoke involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers from other people's cigarettes is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a known human (Group A) carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers.
How do you sleep at night making it seem that smoking isn't harmful??? I thought before your were some ecentric nut, now I think you have the same morality as the tobacco company executives. Spread your dishonest propaganda some place else, thank you. My smoking Aunt didn't die from her lung cancer, she died from the smoking caused emphysema that came with it.
Cigarettes have never been shown to cause cancer -- but people are convinced by the anti-tobacco propaganda that they do.
I think we have a different definition of what cause/proof is. Cigarette smoking does cause cancer according to an overwhelming volume of statistically significant independent research results. This includes studies made by tobacco companies themselves, not to mention hospitals filled with smokers dying from lung cancer. So how do you explain this or are you a smoker yourself who can't accept reality?
Nobody can really definitively say, at this point, that cell phones do or do not cause cancer. It's almost impossible to disprove (you could only prove a cell phones didn't cause a few specific problems if you had the research to back it up). We find things causing problems years later that were thought to be safe for centuries (lead posioning, mercury poisoning, fundamentalism;>), etc.). It's also difficult to prove anything does cause cancer, but at least with cigarettes we have.
The basic question here is not if cell phone radiation causes medical problems, but at what level of exposure.
1. Obviously, normal cellphone use does not affect most people.
2. Stick your head in a microwave long enough and your dead.
3. We don't know at what level of exposure that cellphones do cause damage and guess who doesn't want us to know? The cell phone companies are doing everything they can to block any government research into this.
They cite the volume of their own research as a reason to prevent government funded cell phone radiation research. Note that 3 out of 4 cell phone company based research tests show there may not be problems, 3 out of 4 independent research studies show there may be problems.
I can't imagine why there is a discrepancy, but if you request funding from the cell phone companies for research in what might be an unsafe direction, don't expect to get any funds. Academics need research funds to do the research. Don't expect to get industry funds if you start finding problems. Most research tests only a narrow hypothesis, not "do cell phones cause harm". Therefore, a lot of possible issues are not explored.
It is a crime that we don't KNOW what the exact level of exposure is that will cause problems. It may be so high nobody who talks 10 hours a month has to worry about it, but how could we legally be using these products without knowing this? Why don't the cell phone companies want us to know? It is highly likely they have an idea and it must not be at a level that will preserve their profits.
As far as the problem with the cell phone towers, there are a lot of complicating factors. For example, all types of wave radiation form something called standing waves wherever there are reflections. I could be sitting in my cubicle talking to you right next to me, and I might be getting 10 times the radiation exposure that you are because I happen to be in an area where a lot of reflections converge from all the different individual antennas in the larger cluster. If you are in a hotspot you will show problems while other people in the area are fine.
The bottom line is when we find out in 40 years that, like the tobacco companies, the cell phone companies covered up and restrained research in the pursuit of profits, your grandchildren will be pissed. I use a cell phone, but why is there all this resistance to finding out the facts?
If your trucker friend has metallic paint on his cab, that may be causing the reception problems. Either way, I would look for a wifi card that supports connecting to an external antenna so he can use an antenna mounted outside of his cab.
Record companies are basically organized crime:
* they price fixed for years in the past and occasionally they get their hands slapped with a small fine (never criminal action). This price fixing business model is illegal.
* They install root kits on customers computers which open the customers computers up to installation of additional software and viruses without their consent. This software also destabilizes the customers PC, and it consumes memory and CPU time forever, even if they are no longer using the product.
* They buy legislators and pay them to pass bills trying to legalize their illegal business plans.
* They sue their own customers, without even knowing or caring if the person they sue has broken a law. Who is going to continue patronizing companies that sue their customers???
* Their overpriced products are not governed by the laws of supply and demand. Hence, sales go down but the product does not go down in price to increase sales. What other private, non-utility industry can have a legislatively supported business plan that does not respond to the laws of supply and demand? Still, they make huge profits even when sales go down. They think that by buying more legislators, eventually they will win. They fail to learn from Microsoft's mistakes. Just because you are a monopoly it doesn't mean you can shove an inferior, overpriced product down peoples throats and not lose market share to the inevitable backlash. When the record companies get a backlash they buy new legislation to pay them for their losses, i.e. tariffs on blank CD's, IPODs and computers.
I feel morally ashamed when I buy a CD now and support organized crime. I buy only a few CD's a year now and avoid DVD's entirely. I used to buy a couple dozen CD's a year. I'd rather listen to old music than support criminal monopolies.
I also hold major music bands partly to blame, you don't have to go though dishonest labels (the majority - all RIAA members) or distribute by traditional channels (use direct downloads instead).
I hope my fellow Slashdot'rs will consider boycotting any paid music or video DVD's whenever possible. Even though I don't illegally download music (I've bought enough stuff already), I think illegal downloading is morally justifiable when you are up against a corrupt government (I'm refering only to the US here, I don't know about overseas), and your media companies are also totally corrupt. Only a boycott can resolve this issue. Even then, we will face taxes on PC's, blank media and possibly the air we breath, to replace the lost profits of record companies.
The only reason Microsoft is focusing on security is because of the wording of the DOJ settlement. Microsoft can keep secret all OS programming API's which have to do with security. By adding extra parameters having to do with security to their currently secret API's, they can keep them private for their own use. This is why MS is focusing on security all of a sudden. Every API they want to keep exclusively for their own use will get tied in with security features. It's not like someone will be allowed to audit their code for compliance anyway.
Just MS business as usual!
Slashdot Mirror
Now I understand where you're coming from, you must sell cigars or other types of tobacco. Only 3% may die from lung cancer, but how many die from the complications of lung cancer?
How do you sleep at night making it seem that smoking isn't harmful??? I thought before your were some ecentric nut, now I think you have the same morality as the tobacco company executives. Spread your dishonest propaganda some place else, thank you. My smoking Aunt didn't die from her lung cancer, she died from the smoking caused emphysema that came with it.
I think we have a different definition of what cause/proof is. Cigarette smoking does cause cancer according to an overwhelming volume of statistically significant independent research results. This includes studies made by tobacco companies themselves, not to mention hospitals filled with smokers dying from lung cancer. So how do you explain this or are you a smoker yourself who can't accept reality?
Nobody can really definitively say, at this point, that cell phones do or do not cause cancer. It's almost impossible to disprove (you could only prove a cell phones didn't cause a few specific problems if you had the research to back it up). We find things causing problems years later that were thought to be safe for centuries (lead posioning, mercury poisoning, fundamentalism;>), etc.). It's also difficult to prove anything does cause cancer, but at least with cigarettes we have.
The basic question here is not if cell phone radiation causes medical problems, but at what level of exposure. 1. Obviously, normal cellphone use does not affect most people. 2. Stick your head in a microwave long enough and your dead. 3. We don't know at what level of exposure that cellphones do cause damage and guess who doesn't want us to know? The cell phone companies are doing everything they can to block any government research into this. They cite the volume of their own research as a reason to prevent government funded cell phone radiation research. Note that 3 out of 4 cell phone company based research tests show there may not be problems, 3 out of 4 independent research studies show there may be problems. I can't imagine why there is a discrepancy, but if you request funding from the cell phone companies for research in what might be an unsafe direction, don't expect to get any funds. Academics need research funds to do the research. Don't expect to get industry funds if you start finding problems. Most research tests only a narrow hypothesis, not "do cell phones cause harm". Therefore, a lot of possible issues are not explored. It is a crime that we don't KNOW what the exact level of exposure is that will cause problems. It may be so high nobody who talks 10 hours a month has to worry about it, but how could we legally be using these products without knowing this? Why don't the cell phone companies want us to know? It is highly likely they have an idea and it must not be at a level that will preserve their profits. As far as the problem with the cell phone towers, there are a lot of complicating factors. For example, all types of wave radiation form something called standing waves wherever there are reflections. I could be sitting in my cubicle talking to you right next to me, and I might be getting 10 times the radiation exposure that you are because I happen to be in an area where a lot of reflections converge from all the different individual antennas in the larger cluster. If you are in a hotspot you will show problems while other people in the area are fine. The bottom line is when we find out in 40 years that, like the tobacco companies, the cell phone companies covered up and restrained research in the pursuit of profits, your grandchildren will be pissed. I use a cell phone, but why is there all this resistance to finding out the facts?
If your trucker friend has metallic paint on his cab, that may be causing the reception problems. Either way, I would look for a wifi card that supports connecting to an external antenna so he can use an antenna mounted outside of his cab.
Record companies are basically organized crime:
* they price fixed for years in the past and occasionally they get their hands slapped with a small fine (never criminal action). This price fixing business model is illegal.
* They install root kits on customers computers which open the customers computers up to installation of additional software and viruses without their consent. This software also destabilizes the customers PC, and it consumes memory and CPU time forever, even if they are no longer using the product.
* They buy legislators and pay them to pass bills trying to legalize their illegal business plans.
* They sue their own customers, without even knowing or caring if the person they sue has broken a law. Who is going to continue patronizing companies that sue their customers???
* Their overpriced products are not governed by the laws of supply and demand. Hence, sales go down but the product does not go down in price to increase sales. What other private, non-utility industry can have a legislatively supported business plan that does not respond to the laws of supply and demand? Still, they make huge profits even when sales go down. They think that by buying more legislators, eventually they will win. They fail to learn from Microsoft's mistakes. Just because you are a monopoly it doesn't mean you can shove an inferior, overpriced product down peoples throats and not lose market share to the inevitable backlash. When the record companies get a backlash they buy new legislation to pay them for their losses, i.e. tariffs on blank CD's, IPODs and computers.
I feel morally ashamed when I buy a CD now and support organized crime. I buy only a few CD's a year now and avoid DVD's entirely. I used to buy a couple dozen CD's a year. I'd rather listen to old music than support criminal monopolies.
I also hold major music bands partly to blame, you don't have to go though dishonest labels (the majority - all RIAA members) or distribute by traditional channels (use direct downloads instead).
I hope my fellow Slashdot'rs will consider boycotting any paid music or video DVD's whenever possible. Even though I don't illegally download music (I've bought enough stuff already), I think illegal downloading is morally justifiable when you are up against a corrupt government (I'm refering only to the US here, I don't know about overseas), and your media companies are also totally corrupt. Only a boycott can resolve this issue. Even then, we will face taxes on PC's, blank media and possibly the air we breath, to replace the lost profits of record companies.
Are you up to the challenge?
The only reason Microsoft is focusing on security is because of the wording of the DOJ settlement. Microsoft can keep secret all OS programming API's which have to do with security. By adding extra parameters having to do with security to their currently secret API's, they can keep them private for their own use. This is why MS is focusing on security all of a sudden. Every API they want to keep exclusively for their own use will get tied in with security features. It's not like someone will be allowed to audit their code for compliance anyway. Just MS business as usual!