Take a store for example. You have 8 magazine racks on the shelf. The first 7 are "free" and open to the public to look at all they want. The eigth you have to pay for.
Is it the people walking into the store or the store owner that should make sure the 8th magazine rack doesn't get read before purchasing?
Now to be more clear, let's say the 8th magazine rack is not on a normal display and is off to the side, behind the crackers. A kids slides inbetween the racks accidently and notices rack #8.
If there is a sign that says "you cannot read these magazines without purchasing them" then there perhaps is an issue. But if there isn't, and the rack is just "hidden" but not secured, with like a plastic wrapping around the magazine. Then what law will protect the merchant for not securing their product? So no, the 8th html page is in the public and is like anything in real life that can get "bumped into by accident." Hardly a clear label for private/closed... (the inside of your house can't be entered by accident, but rack 8 and html page 8 can be...)
v. closed, closÂing, closÂes (kloz) v. tr.
1. To move (a door, for example) so that an opening or passage is covered or obstructed; shut.
2. To bar access to: closed the road for repairs.
5. To make unavailable for use: closed the area to development; closed the database to further changes.
priÂvate adj.
1.
1. Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others: a private hideaway.
2. Designed or intended for one's exclusive use: a private room.
My personal computer is "private" and no one is allowed in without my permission. Period. Even if there is no password or anything protecting it, just like my house.
The commercial area of my site is "closed" to those without access. If there is a private area in my commercial space that is supposed to be closed to public access, then I should put a wall around it so nobody "accidently" finds it (like page 8), and then put a lock on the door, so patrons know, "you need a key to enter, go buy one at the counter".
This is all common sense in the real world, why the confusion on the web related issues?
If someone at a store removes (or forgets to label) a private area of the store a person goes in there, is the person's fault or the stores?
I figure people our automatons at times enough to fill the same analogy. But if they take something from that room the fact that it was private or not is irrellavant, as it is stealing.
If someone makes a map to that room and says "go here" (aka, a link) then it's the store's job to lock it down.
The point you make about security is a matter of damage and stealing, not really access. If you drop a private letter on a public street, I doubt there is a law to protect you from a newspaper publishing your private letter.
If you drop your security online for a public website then the only thing that you can get for recourses in is damages, not unathorized access, as your site is publicly accessable.
BUT, my computer, no that is illegal access. A public web site without proper "doors" and "stay out" signs, no that is not illegal access, that is negligence on the part of the site owner. I personally have a real problem with people just walking into my house, even if they don't take anything.
My website though is out there for the soul purpose to have people see it. If you don't want people to see it, then put a password on it, and then if someone get's in, then it's unathorized access.
It can't be helped if people don't know how to lock down there site, it's a risk they are taking if they don't, won't or can't secure their site.
1. When some one comes in uninvited. 2. When someone breaks into my house. 3. When someone is in my house already and then I ask them to leave and they don't.
Obviously these rules apply similarily to a website vs a brick and mortar.
1. All people can come into my business 2. If it is closed you cannot come in. 3. If there is a private area you cannot have access to it. 4. If you are asked to leave and you don't, then you are breaking the law and the nice officer will come and my asking and remove you from my premises.
Why does the digital world have to be any different?
My website is my business/public area, if I lock something done with a password, stay out. Anybody can email me or send me snail mail. My computer is like my home, no one is ever allowed here unless I say it is ok, period.
No access to personal computers should be legal without the consent of the owner of that computer. An ISP has an agreement with the user, so access is needed, but this isn't much different than the water, power and sewer I have. The people running the utilities have certain accesses to my home in an odd way...
But, to be to the point here, if there is indeed "one" God, then does our opinion matter or change who or what he is?
What you described is what is called "idolatry", worshiping a self made God...
If I am in deep trouble and am about to die, I would have to consider myself insane to pray or ask for help from a wooden statue I've made or to call on an actor from a movie screen that I idolized...
But yet if there is a real God, then calling on him for help is exactly what would do good and I would receive help...
To sum up, calling on a self made God for help = 0% chance of getting help...
Calling on a possibly real God (definitely real to many people, and if indeed real, our perceptions of his existance are pointless and our debates of his existance more pointless) then I have a very good chance of receiving help. (unquantifiable as it may be, but better than 0%)
"This won't happen without Intel and AMD deciding both on the processor chip and the system design they'll build these things in," Gates said. "And there's even some work that needs to go in the video display and keyboard."
Having your CPU and MB hijacked is one thing, but your monitor and keyboard as well is just freaky... Next thing you know, you will be building a new system, and you find one of your components is a bad guy...
Keyboard: Sorry, I can't connect to your computer, your 3rd memory chip does not have palladium. Good-bye!
CPU: Sorry, this computer will shut down now, you are currently running an insecure non-palladium OS. (aka Linux)
Monitor: Sorry, this display is now shutting down, your video cable does not contain the proper DRM filters.
Mouse: Sorry, this mouse will shut down now, you have not registered your finger prints with the NSA. Click here, if you would like to register and continue using this mouse.
In this article guys try to find out how well computers can play chess and if it would be correct to say that artificial intelligence is superior to human mind.
I'd like to see that silly computer recognize my face, my 3 month old baby can do that...
The main reason that there are so few Linux viruses out there is that there are so few desktop Linux installations relative to Windows, making it less fun to write Linux viruses, and less likely for them to spread.
This will only hurt the small businesses. Big buisnesses will absorb this cost, and personal people won't pay a dime.
Also, spammers won't pay a penny in this tax... Why? Cause all you'd have to do is setup multiple accounts and ensure that they only send 5000 emails from each account.. just like a dumby corporation is used to buy stocks, etc...
Also think of the intrusion into your own software and computers and ISP management it would take to enforce this, ugh...
Ok, show me how evolution would have the logic to "decide" anything...
The problem here is that none of your ideas you listed above would work without someone/thing with a brain smart enough to change or decide what works and what doesn't...
If you insist that decsions were made about what works, and what doesn't then you have a creator.
If you insist that there was no creator, then there was no logic to decide anything and it is chance, and my experiements are valid.
If they are valid, then you will see that you can't recreate anything at all with chance, hence the theory of evolution is FUD...
Actually, it's my 3rd child. The oldest is 6, sleep is always an issue it seems...
Ok, I am understanding where you are coming from, but since there is still so much debate between extremely well knowledgeable groups in the world, and cancer is on target for being about 1 out of ever 2 people in the US in the next 20 years, there has to be something... (right now it's 1 out of 3 or 4, sorry again, data is not in front of me)
And personally of the works that I've read I am not convinved that there is no effect even from TV's, house wiring and many other things that didn't exist 100 years ago. (don't go into how short people lived back then, cause there's data showing that's balogna...:)
Also, I have a problem with poplular knowledge of human health because doctors say to stay out of the sun "it's bad for you", don't take vitamins "it just makes expensive urine", and changing your diet has nothing to do with your health "take the pill instead"
I stopped eating white sugar 7 years ago, (along with a ton of other things) and everyone around me get's sick every winter, everyone. I haven't had a cold or flu for 7 years... it must be the shots that are keeping me healthy (I don't take them).
My dentist says "sugar doesn't cause cavitities, its bacteria" I learned in 3rd grade (regardless of bacteria) that sugar had a direct link to cavities.
Most of my teeth in childhood got cavities. I got cavities when I was a teenager. When I stopped eating sugar, guess what, my dentist thought I had great brushing habits. This was totally balogna, I was terrible at it... I'm sure you see the point.
Doctors and researchers for many, many years said tobacco doesn't cause cancer, or that it "may" cause cancer...
Hence, comes new data showing links to cellphones and tumors and boom, it's instantly shot down.
Is there a connection? Can you truly say you'd put up a microwave power transmission antanae outside your child's window? Putting it that way makes a huge difference in your perspective. I'm sure if you child was found unable to have children later in life, or developed some kind of odd disease in their teens that it wouldn't seem worthwhile.
This is the perspective I come from.
1) It's a fact that we have a consitently lying global industry.
2) Reaserchers lie about their findings or purposely direct the testing to show the data they want. (for pay of course)
3) My own doctors/dentist/nurses (dentist I had since I was 7) are now convinced and truly believe things that I have personally proven to be false. (diet affecting health a big one)
4) Our children did not get shots, were breast fed, and have NEVER gone to the hospital since they were born. (all the kids of our friends eat filth and are sickly and many were taken frequently to the hospital as babies, and doctors think this is "normal") Hence, are doctors trained to make people healthy, or just fix them when they break?
5) It's rare that a public health official goes against the grain of what the industry says. Period.
Needless to say, I have a cable modem, and not the wireless antanae I could have gotten that would go in my attic, literally 15 feet away from my where my oldest daughter sleeps...
It would have to be pretty convincing data to show there's no connection for me to put my own children at risk...
In general, theories, ideas, knowledge and understanding have all been proven wrong time and time again in the past. So unless there is actual data, real testing on real animals and proof that is not tainted or payed for by industry, then how can you be truly certain that this power transmission system is safe?
If navigation and other electronic systems on airplanes malfunction because of consumer devices that are tens of feet away, then there is a problem with the design of airplane electronics that needs to get fixed.
You have brought up an interesting point. Let's just say a terrorist wants a plane to crash in the mountains, just send bogus data or scramble up the navigation equipment on the plane, and you just might get that..
The badguy wouldn't even have to be on the plane, just slip a little box into someone's luggage or something...
The point I see where they are going with this, (as the FBI and congress are sneaky and take things baby steps at a time) is that if indeed cellphones do this (which I highly doubt anyways) then they really should be turned off until this is fixed. Since I've never ever heard of a radio transmission of anykind messing with a compass (that is almost insulting to my intelligence) then I see this as a way to -
1) Remove all possible communication from a plane that is not completely controlled by the pilot.
2) Allow testing or awarness of any techincal attack of this nature to be known immdeiately.
3) Perhaps secret devices installed on the planes are really what is effected and not navigation stuff at all. (especially as I understand, the newer phones radiate less power than older phones...)
All in all, this is all fishy. It seems very likely that if there is another terrorist attack, everyone and there mother would get on their cell phones on the plane and call 911. BUT if that is illegal and people are educated that it will cause a crash, then they are less likely to do that, or maybe cellphones will be banned in the cabin altogether, very likely.
So, if the news continues with more stories like this, then I predict it will be an educationing of the masses to be prepared for banning of cell phones.
Then when the next terrorists take over a plane, there will be no evidence of anykind to determine if there was any terrorists on the plane at all or if it was all fabricated... (re9ad betw1een the lin1es)
Thanks for the info. But where is the data that shows microwaves at the frequency and power level used for power transmission have absolutely no effect on the human body? There must be some otherwise how could anyone be convinced it's safe?
Also cells have electro-mechanical structures that allow nutrients in an out of each cell. It has definitely been shown to use "electricity" in the common term of it, like wires, not communication. They are spiral structures of mainly calcium (I will have to look this up again) and use direct current to open an close based on Ph differences between the interior of the cell and the blood flow outside of it. As the blood stays permanently at a Ph of 7.1 (I may be off on that) and if the blood Ph changes even.2 +- that level, you will die. When toxic acids build up in the cell the Ph changes, creating a electrical potential and causes the "valves" (for lack of a better term) to open, smaller valves excrete the acids, and larger ones let more nutrients enter from the blood, when the Ph balances out again, the potential decreases and the valves close.
The one thing you can lump about "radiation" is that to much of any wave length will hurt you, x-rays, light or microwaves, I can hardly see that the frequency would matter at all...
These second order effects are often much easier to test than the origonal claims, and thus very effective for weeding out bunk.
I politely disagree, this only works on the most rudamentary and well documented issues. For example, what if someone said, "running a quantum computer will give you cancer". Since there is very little data on quantum computers compared to a standard silicon based computer, you would have very little to base any claim against or for this statement.
But then comes along 2 groups that are far more knowledgeable than us. 1 group sells quantum computers and their research team says they are perfectly safe.
The second group is just a small group of biologists, chemists and doctors. Then care nothing for quantum computer, but have found links between certain radiations from a quantum computer that would cause cancer.
The challenge I have is that I personally have not seen a spec of actual "data" relating to whether or not microwaves cause cancer. But there are certainly 2 groups out there claiming the opposite, one says they are safe, the other says they are not.
Now, from common sense, a leaky microwave oven is a definite source of "bad frequency" radiation, as I am 73% water, therefore would cook nicely next to a faulty microwave. The proof? My uncle tested them and said they would do that, he even said, "don't put your face against the glass, it will cook your eyeballs."
So, it was mentioned by other posters (or yourself, I don't recall which) that the frequency of power transmission using microwaves, is not the same that reacts to water. (which it probably good, as then moisture in the air would become heated by this thing.)
The unsaid statement though is that which frequency is used, and what does that frequency effect?
This is a very specific question with a real answer, there is nothing to debate here. Just as you cannot debate who won the world series in 1965, cause someone did, and no matter how good your arguement, you can't change the facts.
Which leads to the ultimate problem, the frequency used in the power transmission of microwaves effects something, it's (IMHO) impossible for it not to. Can't debate what it effects, we just have to know what it is.
Then the hard question, does the human body, vegitation, animals or earth contain anything that can be effected by this frequency. With those 4 options to choose from, the obvious answer is yes, (as obviously an receiveing antannae (sp?) has to collect the power) one of them at least, very likely most or all of them could be adversly effected.
This is just based on the premis that a frequency can target something so specific as water, yet it effects many other things as well. I had a toy gobot get melted down in a microwave as a child, I am very certain there was no water in that toy.
So the idea that microwaves of a frequency target only one thing is absurd (thanks for the spelling tip). As there are plenty of dishes/utensils that contain no water or metal (or obvious metal) that are heated to a dangerous level by the microwave oven.
With all this in mind, it seems literally impossible to consider microwave transmissions safe for humans that are strong enough to send literal "power" through the air without a moderate to high degree of danger to humans within range. As I imagine the transmission of power would have to be at least equal, and more likely far greater than what a microwave oven puts out...
But then the last big question is, if indeed it would affect humans, animals, plants and/or earth, how does it effect them? Cooking/heating them is the most obvious effect, a less obvious effect is slow radiation poisoning...
It's been proven that microwaved blood will kill a person. The blood has become literally toxic, not just useless. If it interesting to note all the different metals that exhist in our bodies, mainly iron and calcium in our blood.
The reason I find it very, very hard to believe that microwav
Well, you are a reasonable person to debate with. The issue at hand is not physics or chemistry alone, but how the body reacts to these things.
The problem is I would never ever know enough to truly understand how these things would effect a human. Nor would you. That is why we rely on other sources and their research.
If you are curious, look up Bob Barefoot. I got some of my information from 2 of his books that relate the importance of calcium to general health.
Some of the points he brings out (and he has been researching health for 30 years or so as a bio-chemist, if my memory serves me) are that the medical industry has blind sided the US, and that the constitution of the USA almost included protection from the medical industry...
Long story short, this isn't an issue of mercury, microwaves, radiation, etc... It's an issue of fake data marketing. I am in marketing and I have an uncle in a State Senate (I will leave the state unnamed for obvious reasons) of which I have interesting talks.
He is a veternarian, and was in Vietnam as a vet and has been dealing with health for many years, so I don't talk from my own knowledge but from others. Chemistry, math and physics will give you no insite to health without actual research into health.
The aspect that companies lie about the health of their products is easily pointed out in the tobacco industry. That is one shining example.
The only reason that I debate the issue of microwaves is one that every one says "I don't feel bad" from them, and there is no immediate effect. And the sillyness that one frequency used to heat water is the only damaging frequency to humans, from a common sense point of view, is ridiculous.
All you need is for one single element or function on the cellular level of millions in your body to be effected by the radiation and over time, you are going to have a problem from cumulative effects. Even if it's just from a cell phone...
I have a friend who works with software to reconnect DNA, 500 - 2000 blocks at a time, from millions. This is how it's done, he thinks it's a sure thing, it has 3 algorithms to compare the results and such, but consider the small amount of error needed in your DNA to cause cancer, and then combine that with the tiny spec of ability to observe DNA and then all the possible causes of DNA errors...
Yes, but what if the ink is fine and it just shuts off? What if I don't care if the ink looks bad, I just need to get my page to print... The assumption you are making is that the ink's death is so predictable that it will just "die" on a certain day...
Milk doesn't even do that... So I should be able to determine whether or not to try and print with out dated ink, it's not HP's right to force me not to try...
That would be like, the milk jug shutting down when the date hits... but the milk isn't always bad... So how is this a witch-hunt?
And honestly, how is this not on purpose? You really believe that one day difference will cause the ink to be completely unusable, so HP has to "save" us from bad ink? *sigh* Doesn't this sound alot like other consipracy theories?
No, a more logical explaination is that HP can justify the dates and chips and claim DMCA and bad ink. Some geeks will boycott, some will buy it, but the masses won't know the difference...
1. Complain about their business practices, regardless of what they are.
2. Discuss this in a manner that is enlightening to all that read slashdot, and therefor pass this information on to people who would never understand that if they buy HP, the ink could go dead without printing a single page.
3. Not buy HP, because of actions like this.
4. Hear how people are concerned about an obviously criminal form of consumer abuse.
Wouldn't you be pissed if you had bought new tires with 60,000 miles on them, but since you didn't drive your car frequently enough in a 2 year period that the tires just deflate themselves are instantly useless?
I had a bad session once where I NEEDED to print tax documents, and I couldn't cause I ran out of ink, imagine how pissed you would have be if HAD to print something, and then your ink cartridge just shuts off, and you know full well there is plenty of ink left in there.
Or you are eating a burger at McDonalds, and your straw shuts off half-way through drinking your shake...
Calling this thing "economics" is FUD, pure and simple.
So the vast majority of the aluminum you ingest comes from ordinary dust and dirt.
Yes, they may be true, but aliminum does not naturally exhist in a pure form, anywhere. So the forms you digest never make it past the blood brain barrier.
But, aliminum that is ingested from the various aluminum utensils and other various products that use aluminum in forms that are not found in nature have been proven and tested to actually enter brain cells where naturally this would never ever occur.
The amazing thing about this is that I personally know a nurse that is as convinced as you are that aluminum has nothing to do with alzheimers. Why? Because they send all the nurses (I am guessing everywhere in the US) to training seminars frequently, and guess what they are told? Aluminum has nothing to do with alzheimers. Their proof? (laugh) Pharmacutical companies did their own testing, and there's no link.
Yes, it is that blatant. Pharmacutical companies pay for nurses to be brainwashed on a consistent basis. This nurse did not do any research herself in the matter, just trusting what they were told.
Oh, and of course pharmacutical companies never lie for their own benefit...
Your "closer scrutiny" research was funded by Reynolds btw... A completely unbiased company I am sure.
They can be heard from billions of miles away,
We aren't talking about communication transmissions here, the topic is "power" transmission, a hugely different use of microwaves...
Mercury isn't all that toxic.
You really think that? Here's some quite reliable sources that say the complete opposite.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html
How does mercury affect children?
Very young children are more sensitive to mercury than adults. Mercury in the mothers body passes to the fetus and may accumulate there. It can also can pass to a nursing infant through breast milk. However, the benefits of breast feeding may be greater than the possible adverse effects of mercury in breast milk.
Mercurys harmful effects that may be passed from the mother to the fetus include brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination, blindness, seizures, and inability to speak. Children poisoned by mercury may develop problems of their nervous and digestive systems, and kidney damage.
Now, take the statement that even the government says mercury is bad for you in any form combined with the data of the toxic levels in mercury being injected into tiny baby. With the little knowledge that a tiny amount of mercury getting through the vast array of filter systems in a mothers body even across the placenta, and _still_ cause brain damage. You really still think that these lawsuits are frivilous?
I don't even need a team of scientists to prove mercury in any form causes brain damage, the government already knows this. From the above site "The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury."
Actually, it's been shown that you are more likely to get sick from a shot than not get sick. Doesn't make any sense to me to get the shots... Numerous children have been permantely brain damaged and/or died from childhood shots, not just infant shots. You might as well be playing Russian Roulette with your child...
salem witch hunts
I don't know anything about it, otherthan some people were killed because they thought there was witches, that weren't... not unlike the McCarthy era, or are modern day terrorist witch hunts.
The Nazi's? You should look closer at history, Nazi Germany is being repeated in type right here in America. Some evidence; euthanasia being supported, high levels of ant
You have good points. The problem overall is that the people who say 802.11b is safe are the people selling it.
But also I am not really able to debate the effects of cell phone/802 radiation on a human, but I do know from common sense that if I hop the power up and make it into a beam to go 20 miles, we aren't talking the same amount of power.
Also, water in and of itself sitting next to you won't kill you, trying to breath water will. But microwaves sitting next to, without your say-so can kill you in extreme dosages.
The real question is then, ok, if alot will kill you, will a little hurt you?
Then you have to consider the data you have to deal with. One group says yes, one group says no. Who do you believe? The people selling the stuff? Or the researchers that are testing it's saftey?
Lawyers are for bad and good, the reason they go to court is because they feel they can win. If there are countless cases against an industry all over the same issue, it sounds like there must be some pretty compelling data lying around to show that the cases have merit.
Just a quick note, if you didn't read the article I linked to, the dosages of mercury, a known toxin to humans, was far beyond "safe" levels, and injected directly into the childs body with no benefit of natuarl filter system, like skin.
Some basic data on one lawsuit concering this.
It is this mercury, and other vaccine side effects, that have contributed to the enormous rise in autism that has been experienced, not only in the US, but all over the world.
Day of birth: hepatitis B-12 mcg mercury:
30 x safe level
At 4 months: DTaP and HiB on same day - 50 mcg mercury:
60 x safe level
At 6 months: Hep B, Polio - 62.5 mcg mercury:
78 x safe level
At 15 months the child receives another 50 mcg:
41 x safe level
-------
I guess it just seems that the general public will suck up any news article about something being safe just to justify their own needs. Cigarettes being one, aluminum (proven to be linked to alzhiermers in numerous countries, except the US, where 75% of the worlds aliminum comes from), soda pop (all kinds of rotten things in coke for you, those lawsuits will be coming soon) and numerous other things that industries know hurt people. Caffine is a huge one as well...
These things can all be either cleaned up or removed from use, yet they aren't, with poor justifications and faked or manipulated data and tests as "proven" research.
To be honest, I am not a doctor, just cause I can't understand what one guy says doesn't mean it wrong. Can you understand the research that prooves that microwaves "don't" cause cancer? Can you specifically debunk each statement that you call jargon babble?
Have you actually seen the research documents yourself? What if they tested only one frequency on the animals? What if they didn't hit them with any sort of valid dose?
All I know is just takes one mega corporation to spread FUD about something... including EMFs and microwaves. The power industry is one such group.
In texas there was a court case that started in 1985, ended in 1989, Klein School District vs. Houston Light.
The outcome of the Klein case was that the Houston power company was found to have failed in its duty to observe prudent health and safety procedures by having built its power lines too close to the school, thus exposing the school children to EMF hazards, and the company was made to relocate the power lines.
So a court 14 years ago already determined that just power lines themselves are hazardous, how is emmiting direct microwaves less dangerous?
The thing I always note when the truth is touched on in the news that will cost big buisnesses lots of money is that immediately there's "conclusive evidence" against the new research. How is it possible to create contrary evidence so quickly, and call it "conclusive"? Ever wonder? Would any valid scientist do a one month study and say it's evidence conclusively refutes a study of 10 years?
http://www.microwavenews.com/m-a97vws.pdf
Another example of this type of cover up is there are numerous nation wide class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies concerning a proven link between vaccines and autism. There's all of sudden news articles popping up at CNN.com saying that there is no link between autism and vaccines.
The ethics commitees of the NIH state that employess of the NIH that launched this review can even own $20,000 worth of stock in any company they review, but if they own $30,000 they are not able to work on the review. Do you know anyone that owns that much stock in any company? I sure don't... makes you wonder, and that's a public policy, not a hidden agenda, so imagine how poorly that may be enforced...
So it's just incrediblly suspicious when studies that have gone on for years with tons of data are immediately refuted with "new" studies that are sponsored by government agencies... And usually on a grand scale.
Yes, some things the Soviets actually understand more than we do. The Russians have beaten the bone deteriation problems that the US astronauts are dealing with with electromagnetic fields (don't have source in front of me, and I am not a scientist, so excuse me if I am inaccurate with the names) that match a 24 hour cycle. But since the space stations orbit the earth more frequently than 1 orbit a day, the craft cuts through the earth's fields in a way that disturbs cell growth.
Call it "life-energy field" or whatever you want, there is something there, and US doctors don't know squat about it...
Doctors and scientists have effectively used electricity to regrow amputated limbs, yet mysteriously modern doctors call these people "quacks" and "charlatans" yet they have done it, proved that it works and even published their findings in medical journals.
Ever heard the statement, the less someone knows the more convinced they are right?
Every cell in our bodies uses an electrical difference from the internal parts of the cell to through the cell wall using spiral shaped molecule structures, (I believe mainly made up of calcium and some proteins) that let nutrients into the cell.
When the Ph level changes (get's acidic) inside the cell from a build up of waste products produce an electrical potential from the exterior of the cell, this opens this spiral to allow certain sized nutrients and vitamins into the cell. And another set of valves, (which interesting enough happens to be smaller than the "in" valve) lets out the waste.
This small amount of electricity involved in normal cellular activity is incredibly minute, and is susceptible to external effects.
Know of any valid research showing that the small amounts of electricity used in this process are not effected by any kind of radiation?
Btw, the distrubance of this system from simple chemical imablances (acidosis) was shown to cause cancer in the early 1900's. There are countless studies published in medical journals on how you can easily cure cancer, and therefore also provide answers for what cause cancer...
Show me one genetic algorithm that happened by accident... I bet people had to "create" them...
Also the statement that evolution has any methods to do anything is contradictory to it's self, as evolution was a random happening with no design involved.
Mutations are "accidental", but evolution is directed by natural (or artificial) selection
This is the funny part, everyone talks about evolution in terms of modern day animals, and skips the part about the initial cells.
There has to be one point in which a single cell became alive, of which evolution has no explanation.
The idea of "natural selection" is that the strongest survive. But natural selection does not explain anything in how the first DNA came into being to allow the first cell to divide. So it's a non-issue entirely.
In regards to abiogenisis:
"What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?" Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
But it isn't 'random'
If something is 'not random' then it is controlled. Period.
Definition of random: Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.
Therefore basic logic determines that if something is "not random" then there is a method or design or control involved, and therefore evolution has to be random for the theory to remotely hold water. And if it is indeed random, then it would never happen.
It's already been observed to happen.
Only in controlled experiments where the scientist is setting up any environment he wants, not in nature. And even then the data is dubious and tainted by convinced preconceptions, and ultimately, even if the scientist did create life, he "created" it, it didn't happen with evolution.
The "science" of evolution has been filled with fraud for years. Here's one example:
http://evolution-facts.org/a22.htm
The blatantly fraudlent drawings Ernst Haeckel made were even printed in my grade school science books, even though they are completely manufactured and are inaccurate.
Since seeing how data is consistently manipulated to fit evolution, I am highly sceptical unless the whole process for discovery is well documented and open...
Did you even read the site?
Yes, it's a usenet group site with people debating, no solid facts worth noting were found in a cursory visit. If you have a direct link, then I'd consider reading it, but I'm not about spend more than 15 minutes reading other peoples ideas searching and hoping for facts. As I am sure you wouldn't do this either.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure there is an equivilant in real life.
Take a store for example. You have 8 magazine racks on the shelf. The first 7 are "free" and open to the public to look at all they want. The eigth you have to pay for.
Is it the people walking into the store or the store owner that should make sure the 8th magazine rack doesn't get read before purchasing?
Now to be more clear, let's say the 8th magazine rack is not on a normal display and is off to the side, behind the crackers. A kids slides inbetween the racks accidently and notices rack #8.
If there is a sign that says "you cannot read these magazines without purchasing them" then there perhaps is an issue. But if there isn't, and the rack is just "hidden" but not secured, with like a plastic wrapping around the magazine. Then what law will protect the merchant for not securing their product? So no, the 8th html page is in the public and is like anything in real life that can get "bumped into by accident." Hardly a clear label for private/closed... (the inside of your house can't be entered by accident, but rack 8 and html page 8 can be...)
v. closed, closÂing, closÂes (kloz)
v. tr.
1. To move (a door, for example) so that an opening or passage is covered or obstructed; shut.
2. To bar access to: closed the road for repairs.
5. To make unavailable for use: closed the area to development; closed the database to further changes.
priÂvate
adj.
1.
1. Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others: a private hideaway.
2. Designed or intended for one's exclusive use: a private room.
My personal computer is "private" and no one is allowed in without my permission. Period. Even if there is no password or anything protecting it, just like my house.
The commercial area of my site is "closed" to those without access. If there is a private area in my commercial space that is supposed to be closed to public access, then I should put a wall around it so nobody "accidently" finds it (like page 8), and then put a lock on the door, so patrons know, "you need a key to enter, go buy one at the counter".
This is all common sense in the real world, why the confusion on the web related issues?
Actually it does apply.
If someone at a store removes (or forgets to label) a private area of the store a person goes in there, is the person's fault or the stores?
I figure people our automatons at times enough to fill the same analogy. But if they take something from that room the fact that it was private or not is irrellavant, as it is stealing.
If someone makes a map to that room and says "go here" (aka, a link) then it's the store's job to lock it down.
The point you make about security is a matter of damage and stealing, not really access. If you drop a private letter on a public street, I doubt there is a law to protect you from a newspaper publishing your private letter.
If you drop your security online for a public website then the only thing that you can get for recourses in is damages, not unathorized access, as your site is publicly accessable.
BUT, my computer, no that is illegal access. A public web site without proper "doors" and "stay out" signs, no that is not illegal access, that is negligence on the part of the site owner. I personally have a real problem with people just walking into my house, even if they don't take anything.
My website though is out there for the soul purpose to have people see it. If you don't want people to see it, then put a password on it, and then if someone get's in, then it's unathorized access.
It can't be helped if people don't know how to lock down there site, it's a risk they are taking if they don't, won't or can't secure their site.
"It's wierd, Starbucks buys our cheapest quality beans and Folgers buys the best, go figure..."
I personally am tired of people not knowing how to make coffee so I make my own.
Also, I gave up on corporate music as well and now just play comb and wax-paper, when I really get into it I get out my gazoo...
What is "unauthorized access" to my house?
1. When some one comes in uninvited.
2. When someone breaks into my house.
3. When someone is in my house already and then I ask them to leave and they don't.
Obviously these rules apply similarily to a website vs a brick and mortar.
1. All people can come into my business
2. If it is closed you cannot come in.
3. If there is a private area you cannot have access to it.
4. If you are asked to leave and you don't, then you are breaking the law and the nice officer will come and my asking and remove you from my premises.
Why does the digital world have to be any different?
My website is my business/public area, if I lock something done with a password, stay out. Anybody can email me or send me snail mail. My computer is like my home, no one is ever allowed here unless I say it is ok, period.
No access to personal computers should be legal without the consent of the owner of that computer. An ISP has an agreement with the user, so access is needed, but this isn't much different than the water, power and sewer I have. The people running the utilities have certain accesses to my home in an odd way...
Where do I send this?
But, to be to the point here, if there is indeed "one" God, then does our opinion matter or change who or what he is?
What you described is what is called "idolatry", worshiping a self made God...
If I am in deep trouble and am about to die, I would have to consider myself insane to pray or ask for help from a wooden statue I've made or to call on an actor from a movie screen that I idolized...
But yet if there is a real God, then calling on him for help is exactly what would do good and I would receive help...
To sum up, calling on a self made God for help = 0% chance of getting help...
Calling on a possibly real God (definitely real to many people, and if indeed real, our perceptions of his existance are pointless and our debates of his existance more pointless) then I have a very good chance of receiving help. (unquantifiable as it may be, but better than 0%)
Ok, I have to disagree here, a short sample from a college level philosophy class...
Teacher: For your final exam prove this chair does not exist!!
Note: the only student in the class to get an "A" replied with the following-
Student who got an "A": What chair?
Doesn't this just reek of long term issues with say something as simple as taking "screen grabs".
Another article I found in CNN here.
"This won't happen without Intel and AMD deciding both on the processor chip and the system design they'll build these things in," Gates said. "And there's even some work that needs to go in the video display and keyboard."
Having your CPU and MB hijacked is one thing, but your monitor and keyboard as well is just freaky... Next thing you know, you will be building a new system, and you find one of your components is a bad guy...
Keyboard: Sorry, I can't connect to your computer, your 3rd memory chip does not have palladium. Good-bye!
CPU: Sorry, this computer will shut down now, you are currently running an insecure non-palladium OS. (aka Linux)
Monitor: Sorry, this display is now shutting down, your video cable does not contain the proper DRM filters.
Mouse: Sorry, this mouse will shut down now, you have not registered your finger prints with the NSA. Click here, if you would like to register and continue using this mouse.
I'd like to see that silly computer recognize my face, my 3 month old baby can do that...
Perhaps it has something to do with Outlook?
Just maybe?
Also, spammers won't pay a penny in this tax... Why? Cause all you'd have to do is setup multiple accounts and ensure that they only send 5000 emails from each account.. just like a dumby corporation is used to buy stocks, etc...
Also think of the intrusion into your own software and computers and ISP management it would take to enforce this, ugh...
Ok, show me how evolution would have the logic to "decide" anything...
The problem here is that none of your ideas you listed above would work without someone/thing with a brain smart enough to change or decide what works and what doesn't...
If you insist that decsions were made about what works, and what doesn't then you have a creator.
If you insist that there was no creator, then there was no logic to decide anything and it is chance, and my experiements are valid.
If they are valid, then you will see that you can't recreate anything at all with chance, hence the theory of evolution is FUD...
Ok, I am understanding where you are coming from, but since there is still so much debate between extremely well knowledgeable groups in the world, and cancer is on target for being about 1 out of ever 2 people in the US in the next 20 years, there has to be something... (right now it's 1 out of 3 or 4, sorry again, data is not in front of me)
And personally of the works that I've read I am not convinved that there is no effect even from TV's, house wiring and many other things that didn't exist 100 years ago. (don't go into how short people lived back then, cause there's data showing that's balogna...:)
Also, I have a problem with poplular knowledge of human health because doctors say to stay out of the sun "it's bad for you", don't take vitamins "it just makes expensive urine", and changing your diet has nothing to do with your health "take the pill instead"
I stopped eating white sugar 7 years ago, (along with a ton of other things) and everyone around me get's sick every winter, everyone. I haven't had a cold or flu for 7 years... it must be the shots that are keeping me healthy (I don't take them).
My dentist says "sugar doesn't cause cavitities, its bacteria" I learned in 3rd grade (regardless of bacteria) that sugar had a direct link to cavities.
Most of my teeth in childhood got cavities. I got cavities when I was a teenager. When I stopped eating sugar, guess what, my dentist thought I had great brushing habits. This was totally balogna, I was terrible at it... I'm sure you see the point.
Doctors and researchers for many, many years said tobacco doesn't cause cancer, or that it "may" cause cancer...
Hence, comes new data showing links to cellphones and tumors and boom, it's instantly shot down.
Is there a connection? Can you truly say you'd put up a microwave power transmission antanae outside your child's window? Putting it that way makes a huge difference in your perspective. I'm sure if you child was found unable to have children later in life, or developed some kind of odd disease in their teens that it wouldn't seem worthwhile.
This is the perspective I come from.
1) It's a fact that we have a consitently lying global industry.
2) Reaserchers lie about their findings or purposely direct the testing to show the data they want. (for pay of course)
3) My own doctors/dentist/nurses (dentist I had since I was 7) are now convinced and truly believe things that I have personally proven to be false. (diet affecting health a big one)
4) Our children did not get shots, were breast fed, and have NEVER gone to the hospital since they were born. (all the kids of our friends eat filth and are sickly and many were taken frequently to the hospital as babies, and doctors think this is "normal") Hence, are doctors trained to make people healthy, or just fix them when they break?
5) It's rare that a public health official goes against the grain of what the industry says. Period.
Needless to say, I have a cable modem, and not the wireless antanae I could have gotten that would go in my attic, literally 15 feet away from my where my oldest daughter sleeps...
It would have to be pretty convincing data to show there's no connection for me to put my own children at risk...
In general, theories, ideas, knowledge and understanding have all been proven wrong time and time again in the past. So unless there is actual data, real testing on real animals and proof that is not tainted or payed for by industry, then how can you be truly certain that this power transmission system is safe?
You have brought up an interesting point. Let's just say a terrorist wants a plane to crash in the mountains, just send bogus data or scramble up the navigation equipment on the plane, and you just might get that..
The badguy wouldn't even have to be on the plane, just slip a little box into someone's luggage or something...
The point I see where they are going with this, (as the FBI and congress are sneaky and take things baby steps at a time) is that if indeed cellphones do this (which I highly doubt anyways) then they really should be turned off until this is fixed. Since I've never ever heard of a radio transmission of anykind messing with a compass (that is almost insulting to my intelligence) then I see this as a way to -
1) Remove all possible communication from a plane that is not completely controlled by the pilot.
2) Allow testing or awarness of any techincal attack of this nature to be known immdeiately.
3) Perhaps secret devices installed on the planes are really what is effected and not navigation stuff at all. (especially as I understand, the newer phones radiate less power than older phones...)
All in all, this is all fishy. It seems very likely that if there is another terrorist attack, everyone and there mother would get on their cell phones on the plane and call 911. BUT if that is illegal and people are educated that it will cause a crash, then they are less likely to do that, or maybe cellphones will be banned in the cabin altogether, very likely.
So, if the news continues with more stories like this, then I predict it will be an educationing of the masses to be prepared for banning of cell phones.
Then when the next terrorists take over a plane, there will be no evidence of anykind to determine if there was any terrorists on the plane at all or if it was all fabricated... (re9ad betw1een the lin1es)
I have a 3 mo old myself, :)
.2 +- that level, you will die. When toxic acids build up in the cell the Ph changes, creating a electrical potential and causes the "valves" (for lack of a better term) to open, smaller valves excrete the acids, and larger ones let more nutrients enter from the blood, when the Ph balances out again, the potential decreases and the valves close.
Thanks for the info. But where is the data that shows microwaves at the frequency and power level used for power transmission have absolutely no effect on the human body? There must be some otherwise how could anyone be convinced it's safe?
Also cells have electro-mechanical structures that allow nutrients in an out of each cell. It has definitely been shown to use "electricity" in the common term of it, like wires, not communication. They are spiral structures of mainly calcium (I will have to look this up again) and use direct current to open an close based on Ph differences between the interior of the cell and the blood flow outside of it. As the blood stays permanently at a Ph of 7.1 (I may be off on that) and if the blood Ph changes even
The one thing you can lump about "radiation" is that to much of any wave length will hurt you, x-rays, light or microwaves, I can hardly see that the frequency would matter at all...
I politely disagree, this only works on the most rudamentary and well documented issues. For example, what if someone said, "running a quantum computer will give you cancer". Since there is very little data on quantum computers compared to a standard silicon based computer, you would have very little to base any claim against or for this statement.
But then comes along 2 groups that are far more knowledgeable than us. 1 group sells quantum computers and their research team says they are perfectly safe.
The second group is just a small group of biologists, chemists and doctors. Then care nothing for quantum computer, but have found links between certain radiations from a quantum computer that would cause cancer.
The challenge I have is that I personally have not seen a spec of actual "data" relating to whether or not microwaves cause cancer. But there are certainly 2 groups out there claiming the opposite, one says they are safe, the other says they are not.
Now, from common sense, a leaky microwave oven is a definite source of "bad frequency" radiation, as I am 73% water, therefore would cook nicely next to a faulty microwave. The proof? My uncle tested them and said they would do that, he even said, "don't put your face against the glass, it will cook your eyeballs."
So, it was mentioned by other posters (or yourself, I don't recall which) that the frequency of power transmission using microwaves, is not the same that reacts to water. (which it probably good, as then moisture in the air would become heated by this thing.)
The unsaid statement though is that which frequency is used, and what does that frequency effect?
This is a very specific question with a real answer, there is nothing to debate here. Just as you cannot debate who won the world series in 1965, cause someone did, and no matter how good your arguement, you can't change the facts.
Which leads to the ultimate problem, the frequency used in the power transmission of microwaves effects something, it's (IMHO) impossible for it not to. Can't debate what it effects, we just have to know what it is.
Then the hard question, does the human body, vegitation, animals or earth contain anything that can be effected by this frequency. With those 4 options to choose from, the obvious answer is yes, (as obviously an receiveing antannae (sp?) has to collect the power) one of them at least, very likely most or all of them could be adversly effected.
This is just based on the premis that a frequency can target something so specific as water, yet it effects many other things as well. I had a toy gobot get melted down in a microwave as a child, I am very certain there was no water in that toy.
So the idea that microwaves of a frequency target only one thing is absurd (thanks for the spelling tip). As there are plenty of dishes/utensils that contain no water or metal (or obvious metal) that are heated to a dangerous level by the microwave oven.
With all this in mind, it seems literally impossible to consider microwave transmissions safe for humans that are strong enough to send literal "power" through the air without a moderate to high degree of danger to humans within range. As I imagine the transmission of power would have to be at least equal, and more likely far greater than what a microwave oven puts out...
But then the last big question is, if indeed it would affect humans, animals, plants and/or earth, how does it effect them? Cooking/heating them is the most obvious effect, a less obvious effect is slow radiation poisoning...
It's been proven that microwaved blood will kill a person. The blood has become literally toxic, not just useless. If it interesting to note all the different metals that exhist in our bodies, mainly iron and calcium in our blood.
The reason I find it very, very hard to believe that microwav
I've never had such joy clicking a "skip" button!
Well, you are a reasonable person to debate with. The issue at hand is not physics or chemistry alone, but how the body reacts to these things.
The problem is I would never ever know enough to truly understand how these things would effect a human. Nor would you. That is why we rely on other sources and their research.
If you are curious, look up Bob Barefoot. I got some of my information from 2 of his books that relate the importance of calcium to general health.
Some of the points he brings out (and he has been researching health for 30 years or so as a bio-chemist, if my memory serves me) are that the medical industry has blind sided the US, and that the constitution of the USA almost included protection from the medical industry...
Long story short, this isn't an issue of mercury, microwaves, radiation, etc... It's an issue of fake data marketing. I am in marketing and I have an uncle in a State Senate (I will leave the state unnamed for obvious reasons) of which I have interesting talks.
He is a veternarian, and was in Vietnam as a vet and has been dealing with health for many years, so I don't talk from my own knowledge but from others. Chemistry, math and physics will give you no insite to health without actual research into health.
The aspect that companies lie about the health of their products is easily pointed out in the tobacco industry. That is one shining example.
The only reason that I debate the issue of microwaves is one that every one says "I don't feel bad" from them, and there is no immediate effect. And the sillyness that one frequency used to heat water is the only damaging frequency to humans, from a common sense point of view, is ridiculous.
All you need is for one single element or function on the cellular level of millions in your body to be effected by the radiation and over time, you are going to have a problem from cumulative effects. Even if it's just from a cell phone...
I have a friend who works with software to reconnect DNA, 500 - 2000 blocks at a time, from millions. This is how it's done, he thinks it's a sure thing, it has 3 algorithms to compare the results and such, but consider the small amount of error needed in your DNA to cause cancer, and then combine that with the tiny spec of ability to observe DNA and then all the possible causes of DNA errors...
Yes, but what if the ink is fine and it just shuts off? What if I don't care if the ink looks bad, I just need to get my page to print... The assumption you are making is that the ink's death is so predictable that it will just "die" on a certain day...
Milk doesn't even do that... So I should be able to determine whether or not to try and print with out dated ink, it's not HP's right to force me not to try...
That would be like, the milk jug shutting down when the date hits... but the milk isn't always bad... So how is this a witch-hunt?
And honestly, how is this not on purpose? You really believe that one day difference will cause the ink to be completely unusable, so HP has to "save" us from bad ink? *sigh* Doesn't this sound alot like other consipracy theories?
No, a more logical explaination is that HP can justify the dates and chips and claim DMCA and bad ink. Some geeks will boycott, some will buy it, but the masses won't know the difference...
And we are entitled to -
1. Complain about their business practices, regardless of what they are.
2. Discuss this in a manner that is enlightening to all that read slashdot, and therefor pass this information on to people who would never understand that if they buy HP, the ink could go dead without printing a single page.
3. Not buy HP, because of actions like this.
4. Hear how people are concerned about an obviously criminal form of consumer abuse.
Wouldn't you be pissed if you had bought new tires with 60,000 miles on them, but since you didn't drive your car frequently enough in a 2 year period that the tires just deflate themselves are instantly useless?
I had a bad session once where I NEEDED to print tax documents, and I couldn't cause I ran out of ink, imagine how pissed you would have be if HAD to print something, and then your ink cartridge just shuts off, and you know full well there is plenty of ink left in there.
Or you are eating a burger at McDonalds, and your straw shuts off half-way through drinking your shake...
Calling this thing "economics" is FUD, pure and simple.
Yes, they may be true, but aliminum does not naturally exhist in a pure form, anywhere. So the forms you digest never make it past the blood brain barrier.
But, aliminum that is ingested from the various aluminum utensils and other various products that use aluminum in forms that are not found in nature have been proven and tested to actually enter brain cells where naturally this would never ever occur.
The amazing thing about this is that I personally know a nurse that is as convinced as you are that aluminum has nothing to do with alzheimers. Why? Because they send all the nurses (I am guessing everywhere in the US) to training seminars frequently, and guess what they are told? Aluminum has nothing to do with alzheimers. Their proof? (laugh) Pharmacutical companies did their own testing, and there's no link.
Yes, it is that blatant. Pharmacutical companies pay for nurses to be brainwashed on a consistent basis. This nurse did not do any research herself in the matter, just trusting what they were told.
Oh, and of course pharmacutical companies never lie for their own benefit...
Your "closer scrutiny" research was funded by Reynolds btw... A completely unbiased company I am sure.
They can be heard from billions of miles away,
We aren't talking about communication transmissions here, the topic is "power" transmission, a hugely different use of microwaves...
Mercury isn't all that toxic.
You really think that? Here's some quite reliable sources that say the complete opposite.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html
How does mercury affect children?
Very young children are more sensitive to mercury than adults. Mercury in the mothers body passes to the fetus and may accumulate there. It can also can pass to a nursing infant through breast milk. However, the benefits of breast feeding may be greater than the possible adverse effects of mercury in breast milk.
Mercurys harmful effects that may be passed from the mother to the fetus include brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination, blindness, seizures, and inability to speak. Children poisoned by mercury may develop problems of their nervous and digestive systems, and kidney damage.
Dental concerns, bans on mercury, etc...
Brain and nerve damage from mercury and other metals
Now, take the statement that even the government says mercury is bad for you in any form combined with the data of the toxic levels in mercury being injected into tiny baby. With the little knowledge that a tiny amount of mercury getting through the vast array of filter systems in a mothers body even across the placenta, and _still_ cause brain damage. You really still think that these lawsuits are frivilous?
I don't even need a team of scientists to prove mercury in any form causes brain damage, the government already knows this. From the above site "The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury."
Actually, it's been shown that you are more likely to get sick from a shot than not get sick. Doesn't make any sense to me to get the shots... Numerous children have been permantely brain damaged and/or died from childhood shots, not just infant shots. You might as well be playing Russian Roulette with your child...
salem witch hunts
I don't know anything about it, otherthan some people were killed because they thought there was witches, that weren't... not unlike the McCarthy era, or are modern day terrorist witch hunts.
The Nazi's? You should look closer at history, Nazi Germany is being repeated in type right here in America. Some evidence; euthanasia being supported, high levels of ant
But also I am not really able to debate the effects of cell phone/802 radiation on a human, but I do know from common sense that if I hop the power up and make it into a beam to go 20 miles, we aren't talking the same amount of power.
Also, water in and of itself sitting next to you won't kill you, trying to breath water will. But microwaves sitting next to, without your say-so can kill you in extreme dosages.
The real question is then, ok, if alot will kill you, will a little hurt you?
Then you have to consider the data you have to deal with. One group says yes, one group says no. Who do you believe? The people selling the stuff? Or the researchers that are testing it's saftey?
Lawyers are for bad and good, the reason they go to court is because they feel they can win. If there are countless cases against an industry all over the same issue, it sounds like there must be some pretty compelling data lying around to show that the cases have merit.
Just a quick note, if you didn't read the article I linked to, the dosages of mercury, a known toxin to humans, was far beyond "safe" levels, and injected directly into the childs body with no benefit of natuarl filter system, like skin.
Some basic data on one lawsuit concering this.
It is this mercury, and other vaccine side effects, that have contributed to the enormous rise in autism that has been experienced, not only in the US, but all over the world.
Day of birth: hepatitis B-12 mcg mercury: 30 x safe level
At 4 months: DTaP and HiB on same day - 50 mcg mercury: 60 x safe level
At 6 months: Hep B, Polio - 62.5 mcg mercury: 78 x safe level
At 15 months the child receives another 50 mcg: 41 x safe level
-------
I guess it just seems that the general public will suck up any news article about something being safe just to justify their own needs. Cigarettes being one, aluminum (proven to be linked to alzhiermers in numerous countries, except the US, where 75% of the worlds aliminum comes from), soda pop (all kinds of rotten things in coke for you, those lawsuits will be coming soon) and numerous other things that industries know hurt people. Caffine is a huge one as well...
These things can all be either cleaned up or removed from use, yet they aren't, with poor justifications and faked or manipulated data and tests as "proven" research.
Have you actually seen the research documents yourself? What if they tested only one frequency on the animals? What if they didn't hit them with any sort of valid dose?
All I know is just takes one mega corporation to spread FUD about something... including EMFs and microwaves. The power industry is one such group.
In texas there was a court case that started in 1985, ended in 1989, Klein School District vs. Houston Light.
The outcome of the Klein case was that the Houston power company was found to have failed in its duty to observe prudent health and safety procedures by having built its power lines too close to the school, thus exposing the school children to EMF hazards, and the company was made to relocate the power lines.
So a court 14 years ago already determined that just power lines themselves are hazardous, how is emmiting direct microwaves less dangerous?
The thing I always note when the truth is touched on in the news that will cost big buisnesses lots of money is that immediately there's "conclusive evidence" against the new research. How is it possible to create contrary evidence so quickly, and call it "conclusive"? Ever wonder? Would any valid scientist do a one month study and say it's evidence conclusively refutes a study of 10 years?
http://www.microwavenews.com/m-a97vws.pdf
Another example of this type of cover up is there are numerous nation wide class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies concerning a proven link between vaccines and autism. There's all of sudden news articles popping up at CNN.com saying that there is no link between autism and vaccines.
The ethics commitees of the NIH state that employess of the NIH that launched this review can even own $20,000 worth of stock in any company they review, but if they own $30,000 they are not able to work on the review. Do you know anyone that owns that much stock in any company? I sure don't... makes you wonder, and that's a public policy, not a hidden agenda, so imagine how poorly that may be enforced...
So it's just incrediblly suspicious when studies that have gone on for years with tons of data are immediately refuted with "new" studies that are sponsored by government agencies... And usually on a grand scale.
Some info on one lawsuit...
http://www.mercola.com/2001/oct/31/mercury_lawsuit .htm
Now, tell me you totally and completely trust _all_ of the sources that say microwaves have no possible effect on humans.
Call it "life-energy field" or whatever you want, there is something there, and US doctors don't know squat about it...
Doctors and scientists have effectively used electricity to regrow amputated limbs, yet mysteriously modern doctors call these people "quacks" and "charlatans" yet they have done it, proved that it works and even published their findings in medical journals.
Ever heard the statement, the less someone knows the more convinced they are right?
Every cell in our bodies uses an electrical difference from the internal parts of the cell to through the cell wall using spiral shaped molecule structures, (I believe mainly made up of calcium and some proteins) that let nutrients into the cell.
When the Ph level changes (get's acidic) inside the cell from a build up of waste products produce an electrical potential from the exterior of the cell, this opens this spiral to allow certain sized nutrients and vitamins into the cell. And another set of valves, (which interesting enough happens to be smaller than the "in" valve) lets out the waste.
This small amount of electricity involved in normal cellular activity is incredibly minute, and is susceptible to external effects.
Know of any valid research showing that the small amounts of electricity used in this process are not effected by any kind of radiation?
Btw, the distrubance of this system from simple chemical imablances (acidosis) was shown to cause cancer in the early 1900's. There are countless studies published in medical journals on how you can easily cure cancer, and therefore also provide answers for what cause cancer...
Also the statement that evolution has any methods to do anything is contradictory to it's self, as evolution was a random happening with no design involved.
This is the funny part, everyone talks about evolution in terms of modern day animals, and skips the part about the initial cells.
There has to be one point in which a single cell became alive, of which evolution has no explanation.
The idea of "natural selection" is that the strongest survive. But natural selection does not explain anything in how the first DNA came into being to allow the first cell to divide. So it's a non-issue entirely.
In regards to abiogenisis:
"What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?" Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
But it isn't 'random'
If something is 'not random' then it is controlled. Period.
Definition of random: Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.
Therefore basic logic determines that if something is "not random" then there is a method or design or control involved, and therefore evolution has to be random for the theory to remotely hold water. And if it is indeed random, then it would never happen.
It's already been observed to happen.
Only in controlled experiments where the scientist is setting up any environment he wants, not in nature. And even then the data is dubious and tainted by convinced preconceptions, and ultimately, even if the scientist did create life, he "created" it, it didn't happen with evolution.
The "science" of evolution has been filled with fraud for years. Here's one example:
http://evolution-facts.org/a22.htm
The blatantly fraudlent drawings Ernst Haeckel made were even printed in my grade school science books, even though they are completely manufactured and are inaccurate.
Since seeing how data is consistently manipulated to fit evolution, I am highly sceptical unless the whole process for discovery is well documented and open...
Did you even read the site?
Yes, it's a usenet group site with people debating, no solid facts worth noting were found in a cursory visit. If you have a direct link, then I'd consider reading it, but I'm not about spend more than 15 minutes reading other peoples ideas searching and hoping for facts. As I am sure you wouldn't do this either.