Hum, I think you misunderstood my point. It's not about reaching a critical mass to increase your risk, it's about reaching a critical mass to increase the incidence of cancer in a statistically significant manner.
If only a small percentage of the population uses cell phones during the time encompassed by the study, then any increase in the occurrence of cancer may not be different than statistical noise, unless that particular segment of the population was isolated in the study, which I don't think is clear.
However, the following quote from the article is telling: It is possible, Deltour's team wrote, that it takes longer than 10 years for tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up, that the tumours are too rare in this group to show a useful trend, or that there are trends but in subgroups too small to be measured in the study.
Then, they added: It is just as possible that mobile phones do not cause brain tumours
That seems to indicate that the study is inconclusive. I grant that, so far, it is good news, but I also think it is inappropriate to claim that the study proves that cell phones do not cause cancer.
Nicely said. I once read about an interview with Steve Jobs, at around the time that the started the NeXT Computer Company, and I was impressed when he said something similar to your comment. I found the quote in WikiQuotes:
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
And like him, I agree: that's a far more depressing thought than a mere conspiracy. It means that, as you say, there is no they; we are building the world as we want it; by inertia and laziness, not by force. That people--us--are actually that dispassionate and lethargy by our own nature. To me, it is important to recognize this. Only then can we truly see what we are doing, and perhaps steer away from that course.
That may be... back in 2003. As far as I know, the ubiquity of the device has increased substantially since the beginning of the decade. Back at the start of the decade, it was still a strange thought to consider giving up your land-line and keep only a cell-phone. Since then, we've seen the introduction of cell phones tailored specifically to children and the ubiquity of the devices permiating most parts of our society and culture.
This is a "30 year study" that takes into account about 10 years of actual device use by the common population, of which only the tail end showed true ubiquity.
I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying there may not be enough data yet.
>> In the meantime, the cost of carbon offsets has done nothing but cost them, and thus every one of their customers, money.
But if the carbon limits are enforced, and this cost you mentioned turns into a fixed cost of doing business, then there is in fact an incentive to lower emissions in order to lower the cost related to producing them.
Har! My favorite part of that article is: "Be should be very successful with its new focus. Internet appliances represent the kind of numbers to make a company like Be the money they need to support their efforts."
Internet appliances? Sure. Just as soon as Linux breaks through the Desktop market.
No, silly. He's really suggesting we gouge out their eyes, so that they may never read Murdoch's media again.
-dZ.
Re:How many steps before register overflow?
on
Ants That Can Count
·
· Score: 1
I listened to the story yesterday on the radio, and as far as I recall, they implied that the scientists performing the experiment acknowledged that the ants actually took the same number of steps when returning home. This is why they claim that the ants either over- or under-shot their home nest when returning, not just that they stopped somewhere else.
If they actually counted the steps the ants took each way and confirmed them to be the same, then this is significant, and gives more credence to the "pedometer" theory.
-dZ.
Re:I heard one of the ants in the experiment speak
on
Ants That Can Count
·
· Score: 1
But it's not just any large corporation, it's Google! So, you know that the netbook not only comes with no strings attached, it comes with ponies and rainbows, yay!
Slashdot Mirror
You're, of course, right. But once again, Whoosh!
dZ>
Insightful? Wow. I was aiming at "+0 Funny", but I won't complain.
Thanks, mods! I hope at the very least that you got a chuckle out of the comment, if not downright "insight".
-dZ.
>> but he lacked the suitable investment necessary to become a professional race driver and had virtually given up on racing
Actually, it seems that he had physically given up, and virtually taken up racing.
-dZ.
Hum, I think you misunderstood my point. It's not about reaching a critical mass to increase your risk, it's about reaching a critical mass to increase the incidence of cancer in a statistically significant manner.
If only a small percentage of the population uses cell phones during the time encompassed by the study, then any increase in the occurrence of cancer may not be different than statistical noise, unless that particular segment of the population was isolated in the study, which I don't think is clear.
However, the following quote from the article is telling:
It is possible, Deltour's team wrote, that it takes longer than 10 years for tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up, that the tumours are too rare in this group to show a useful trend, or that there are trends but in subgroups too small to be measured in the study.
Then, they added:
It is just as possible that mobile phones do not cause brain tumours
That seems to indicate that the study is inconclusive. I grant that, so far, it is good news, but I also think it is inappropriate to claim that the study proves that cell phones do not cause cancer.
-dZ.
Nicely said. I once read about an interview with Steve Jobs, at around the time that the started the NeXT Computer Company, and I was impressed when he said something similar to your comment. I found the quote in WikiQuotes:
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
And like him, I agree: that's a far more depressing thought than a mere conspiracy. It means that, as you say, there is no they; we are building the world as we want it; by inertia and laziness, not by force. That people--us--are actually that dispassionate and lethargy by our own nature. To me, it is important to recognize this. Only then can we truly see what we are doing, and perhaps steer away from that course.
-dZ.
That may be... back in 2003. As far as I know, the ubiquity of the device has increased substantially since the beginning of the decade. Back at the start of the decade, it was still a strange thought to consider giving up your land-line and keep only a cell-phone. Since then, we've seen the introduction of cell phones tailored specifically to children and the ubiquity of the devices permiating most parts of our society and culture.
This is a "30 year study" that takes into account about 10 years of actual device use by the common population, of which only the tail end showed true ubiquity.
I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying there may not be enough data yet.
-dZ.
I stopped reading the site when Alex wouldn't get rid of those gawd-awful "comics". That and the story embelishment that you mentioned.
-dZ.
>> In the meantime, the cost of carbon offsets has done nothing but cost them, and thus every one of their customers, money.
But if the carbon limits are enforced, and this cost you mentioned turns into a fixed cost of doing business, then there is in fact an incentive to lower emissions in order to lower the cost related to producing them.
-dZ.
Get off the darn WOPR and get back to work, Joshua!
-dZ.
Wouldn't that be 08 levels IRL?
-dZ.
In Soviet Russia, the Trash-80 warms your jokes up!
-dZ.
Har! My favorite part of that article is:
"Be should be very successful with its new focus. Internet appliances represent the kind of numbers to make a company like Be the money they need to support their efforts."
Internet appliances? Sure. Just as soon as Linux breaks through the Desktop market.
-dZ.
Only on KGB 3.11. Since KGB 95 (and especially on KGB NT), surveillance is preemtive.
-dZ.
No, silly. He's really suggesting we gouge out their eyes, so that they may never read Murdoch's media again.
-dZ.
I listened to the story yesterday on the radio, and as far as I recall, they implied that the scientists performing the experiment acknowledged that the ants actually took the same number of steps when returning home. This is why they claim that the ants either over- or under-shot their home nest when returning, not just that they stopped somewhere else.
If they actually counted the steps the ants took each way and confirmed them to be the same, then this is significant, and gives more credence to the "pedometer" theory.
-dZ.
That's what she said!
Har! Har!
Oh...
-dZ.
No, no, no! Adding it yourself to Wikipedia does not count!
-dZ.
>> If someone wants to give advice, go ahead, I'll appreciate it (or at least should :) ).
OK, here it goes: Don't make stupid mistakes like that.
-dZ.
Perhaps if it were called a "decimal comma" it'll make more sense.
-dZ.
Surrender the kids to the nanny state?
Ugh, somehow I don't see the improvement.
-dZ.
>> Toast is a bad idea though. As it is nearly pure starch. Meaining it will frag your immune system even further
That's why it's a known fact that as soon as humans invented bread, they died out en masse and the species didn't survive.
Oh wait!
-dZ.
Sure, there's an app for that!
But it's not just any large corporation, it's Google! So, you know that the netbook not only comes with no strings attached, it comes with ponies and rainbows, yay!
-dZ.
What I want to know is, if I install this wallpaper in my Windows workstation, would it prevent it from crashing?
-dZ.
Wow. A car analogy in a music encoding discussion; you sir have some balls. A tip o' the hat to you.
-dZ.