A computer actively running two operating systems has the complexity of both and the performance of neither. I know car analogies are bad but it's like having two small engines instead of one large engine in your car, with half of the electrical equipment connected to the alternator on one engine, and the other half hooked up to the other one. Sure, if one goes out you can limp along on the other one, but you won't have the functionality of all the electrical stuff - in this analogy, the electrical stuff is your software and the two engines/etc are the operating systems. Most people are better off with one system, because they only have one system to maintain. Granted, if it's down, you lose all functionality, but you're less likely to have a failure in the first place.
So why are hybrid cars so popular?
Besides, a dual-boot computer is not trying to run both operating systems simultaneously, so your analogy doesn't apply. When it is running the Mac OS, the only thing Windows costs you is the space on your hard disk. And vice-versa, when you are running Windows, it is just like having a dedicated Windows machine. There is software (although not yet from Apple) that does let you run OS X and Windows simultaneously. There is definitely a performance cost to this, although even with the beta software it seems to be surprisingly minor.
But the people I'm talking about aren't interested in running two operating systems at once (although that is something that I might do myself). They simply want to have a fall-back option, so that in the event that they run into some kind of a problem with OS X, they can still run Windows and their old software.
So to get back to your car analogy, think of it not as a car with two engines, but as a car with a spare tire in the trunk. You may not ever use it, but you'll feel a lot more comfortable knowing that the spare is there if you ever need it.
Funny--I'm hearing people I wouldn't expect, long-time Wintel users, talking about buying one of the new Macs. It seems there is a lot of pent-up demand for Macs, which has been held back mainly by fear.
What if I get a new Mac and after a few months decide that I actually like Windows better? What if Apple goes out of business and I can't get software? What if my employer requires me to use a particular Windows application? What if a program or game that I want is only available for Windows?
While humans are perhaps the best long-distance runners on the planet, horses come close, and are a lot more versatile. In anything other than a marathon, bet on the horse.
One of the influences that played a big role in my own decision to go into biology was a very inspirational high school biology teacher, Ivan Evans. And an assignment he gave my class back in 1967 or so, was to redesign the human body. My own effort was a quadruped with its brain in its chest, a prehensile tail and 4 arms (two jointed, two prehensile).
Didn't think to put the sex organs in its mouth, though...
It might have something to do with all of those other OSes out there where having atleast a two button mouse/trackpad is a requirement to actually using OS effectively.
Perhaps. But even on the Mac, I use the "right click" exclusively. It's just that with a trackpad I find it more convenient and comfortable to access that functionality with a shift key rather than twisting my thumb into an awkward position.
You know I've been hearing this argument for dual boot of OSX and XP for a while, heck even Linux and XP, but it never dawned on me until now how silly this idea is. I mean, if you're doing your work and your play on XP, then just what is it that you're doing on OSX? Browsing the web, listening to music? Both these can be classified as work or play, but putting that aside, why boot into a new OS just to do these simple tasks? This is coming from someone who dual boots Linux and XP, so realize this is just an observation and not a critique.
Well, personally, I would much rather work and play in OS X. But if I have no choice, because I game I want to play is available only for Windows, or because my employer requires me to use a Windows-only application, I'm willing to tolerate Windows for as brief a period as possible before returning to OS X.
I can understand why people like multibutton mice (I do, too), but what is the appeal of a multibutton trackpad as compared to a single button and modifier keys like on the Macbooks? It's not like you are taking your hand away from the pointing device to reach the keyboard--the pad is right under the keyboard, anyway. And every time I have to twist my hand into that awkward position that lets me reach my thumb under my palm to reach the button I want on a two-button trackpad, I feel like I am risking repetitive motion disorder.
So why to people want multibutton trackpads? Is it just inertia--the resistance of people to changing ingrained habits, even awkward and possibly harmful ones? Is there anybody who started out using a Mac style trackpad (one button with modifier keys) who actually prefers a two-button pad?
Apple is probably the candidate that would benefit least from buying TiVo. TiVo's greatest asset is its superior user interface, but Apple is probably the one company that knows as much as TiVo about creating a friendly UI. If Apple wants to expand into the DVR business, it would probably make more sense for them to buy Elgato, who already make an add-on DVR for the Mac.
But my suspicion is this is exactly the opposite direction from where Apple wants to go--rather than providing a means for users to capture TV from broadcast, cable, or satellite, Apple would prefer to replace those distribution channels entirely with internet distribution--something that they are already doing for the iPod. The next step would be to expand to HD, which the newer Macs are able to handle.
You own the hardware on which it runs... a fact that seems to escape you. If the hardware actively hides things from you, under the control of software (and not your control), you don't own it any more. Hence, you don't own the machine.
So what? Without software, the hardware is an expensive doorstop. And unless you intend to write your own operating system from scratch, you can't own the software. The closest you can get is to run Linux, which at least has source available. And Linux runs just fine on the new Macs.
None of those chips are "secret". None of them are designed to preserve the secrecy of software away from the owner of the machine.
Are you sure? So far as I know, the detailed internal structure of the cpu, as well as the internal software--its microcode--are not available to the user. You are in the position of taking the word of the manufacturer that the processor works according to its specifications.
I suggest reading up on what is possible with a TPM -- not only does it allow Apple to create encrypted shell within the Mac, in which you have no idea what software is running or what it is doing (previously you could use a debugger)... but also remote attestation... to force you to run or not run only code that they specify.
And what evidence can you provide that any of these nefarious things are being done by Apple?
Newton's "Law" of gravity does not actually predict the orbits of the planets, even though that was what it was created to do. The inaccuracy is particularly evident with respect to the precession of the orbit of Mercury.
Also, I had thought they were "Laws" were simply a proven subset of the "theory"
Nope. To begin with, theories are proved--using the word "proof" in the older sense of "tested." Nevertheless, no matter how extensively proved a theory may be, the possibiilty always remains that some future test will disprove the theory and require that it be discarded or revised, just as happened with Newton's "Laws" of Gravity. An untested idea is known as a hypothesis. The notion that there is some level of certainty at which a theory is elevated to a "Law" is entirely a myth.
Microsoft cannot do this because of the anti-trust rulings and organisations, countries are still combatting them on the things they do still include, like windows media player, internet explroer. etc.
Microsoft didn't get in trouble for including extras with the OS; they got into trouble by trying to tie things like IE so deeply into the OS that anybody who used anybody else's browser would lose critical OS function (well, that and lying about it). Apple has not done this; you lose nothing if you decide that you would rather run Firefox than Safari or Konfabulator instead of Dashboard
Incidently, if you are a Mac owner, and you've paid for every major release of OS X, you've paid about $500 over the last 5 years for your operating system.
However, nearly every major release of the Mac OS has included some nifty additional software that by itself is virtually worth the price of the entire upgrade. Spotlight, iPhoto, Dashboard, etc. This is why Mac users upgrade--not because the old version has quit working (OS X is solid enough that a version one or two revisions ago works fine), but to get the new stuff.
Congratulations all you mugs who bought one of these crippled machines. You don't own it... Apple still does. It was designed to hide things from you, and ensure that Apple can hide what it is actually doing on your machine... as well as implementing DRM in hardware.
This seems kind of fooliwh. You don't actually own either the Mac or Windows OS, anyway. You don't even really "own" Linux--you just get a more generous license. And all computers are full of chips in little sealed packages with their insides hidden away from the consumer.
How, specifically, are these machines "crippled?" What, specifically, does this hardware prevent you from doing that you can do on computers from other manufacturers?
If Apple is going to capitalize on the distrust people have for Microsoft, they need to get OS X 10.4 running on any Wintel box and they need to do it now, and have it for sale on shelves before the eye-candy smoke-and-mirrors that is Vista can be shoved out the door by Microsoft.
I am amazed that anybody could seriously believe that Apple could profit by going head-to-head with Microsoft for its core business. Microsoft has previously shown a willingness to cut prices radically when necessary to protect its near-monopoly. So you have Apple taking on enormously increased support costs, while getting into a price war with a much wealthier competitor? And you think this will benefit Apple?
On the other hand, Apple has had a much better reputation than MS with consumers for a long time, and it hasn't helped them build market share. However, the Forrester report predated the ability to dual boot Windows on new Macs. I'm surprised at the number of Windows owners I'm now seeing talking about buying Macs. It seems that the major obstacle for many people switching to the Apple was the fear of getting locked into OS X and then finding that something they needed was only available for Windows. That concern has now vanished. It will be interesting to see whether that frees up all of this pent-up Apple envy and translates into big sales for Apple.
In science, the word "proof" is used in its older meaning of "test," as in "proving ground." It is acknowledged that no amount of scientific proof can establish absolute Truth.
"Law" is a largely obsolete term that means "a simple scientific theory that seems to be reliable." These days, science is moving so fast that hardly anybody presumes to call anything a "law" anymore, no matter how reliable a theory might be. However, for historical reasons, the word "Law" is often retained for older theories, even after they are shown to be wrong. For example, the "Law of Gravity" is still understood to refer to Newton's theory of gravity, even though it has been shown to be inaccurate and has been supplanted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
I've never used Windows, aside from occasionally helping out somebody else. I probably never would, if it is a choice between Windows and OS X, because what I have seen of Windows has not pleased me. But like the OP, I'm now interested in whether there are Windows apps that are useful enough to justify getting a copy of Windows and occasionally dual-booting.
People running Windows will probably always constitute a small fraction of Mac users. So to sell well on the Mac, games will need to be programmed for OS X.
But just as today, most games will not be released for OS X. The difference is that it will now be possible to be a games enthusiast and own a Mac. Since most games pretty much take over the computer, it hardly matters what OS they are running under, anyway.
I'd be surprised if many people buying Macs with the plan to dual boot on a regular basis. These are people who have been interested in Macs, but are worried.
"What if I buy a Mac and decide that I don't like the Mac OS? I don't want to be locked it!"
"What if there is some critical application that I need but that I can't get for the Mac OS?"
"What if Apple goes out of business (I've heard they've been going out of business for decades) and everybody stops releasing software updates for OS X?"
Windows booting provides a safety net for people who are contemplating making the jump. And very likely, dual booting is only the first step. Virtualization is already available from a 3rd party vendor. Apple is supposedly going to incorporate some kind of Windows support into the next version of the Mac OS. Perhaps this is just dual booting, but it could just as well be virtualization.
I just spoke to a friend. I'd offered to help her set up wireless for her older Windows laptop, but she told me that she had heard the Apple announcement and had decided to buy a new Mac laptop instead. This is somebody who has never used a Mac; I'd never had any indication that she was interested in Macs.
However, there weren't large numbers of people who already greatly preferred OS/2, and were deterred from using it solely by the inability to run Windows
If Apple releases OS X for all systems, not just Macs, they will be challenging MS for its core business. They will be taking on substantial increased support costs and losing hardware sales (since the Mac OS is a big part of the incentive for purchasing Apple's hardware) while simultaneously getting into an operating system price war with MS, a company with enormously greater financial resources. And if MS chooses to withdraw Office for the OS X, they can cause still further damage to Apple's OS sales. On the other hand, by offering Windows compatibility at the hardware level, Apple generates revenue for MS--Apple could see quite substantial growth in hardware sales without constituting a significant threat to MS's core business, particularly if a significant number of Mac users end up purchasing Windows as a secondary OS.
In contrast, the current path puts Apple in competition with Dell rather than MS. And here Apple has a key advantage, in that they can offer something that Dell cannot, the Mac OS.
Actually, if you follow those links to the original references, it turns out that there is much less substance there than it appears.
But do I really need to point out that nothing could tell our young that smoking was dangerous untils a few years ago? That fuel is bad for the environment? That asbestos was terribly bad for health?
Actually, evidence had been building up for years that smoking was dangerous. It wasn't all resting on shaky retrospective studies. And it was also known that chemicals could induce cancer, through well-established chemical reaction mechanisms. On the other hand, with cell phones we have no known biological mechanism, and just some contradictory retrospective studies to suggest that there might be a danger.
We even got a fireman in France thet got burned to the third degree putting his hands on a cellphone antenna. And noone denied that an antenna could burn someone from 1-10 cm. So when you live 24/7 a few meters below, one wonders if the long time effects might really be null. Cellphones are one thing, relays are another, but they're still part of the same business.
Now this is just foolish. Your stove can burn you, but that doesn't mean that the people in the apartment next door need to worry that it will give them cancer. The ability of microwaves to produce heat is well understood--it is, after all, how microwave cooking works. And enough heat can burn you. But do you seriously imagine that nobody bothered to check whether cell phones could put out enough energy to burn people? We are talking about energy levels that are multiple orders of magnitude below that required to heat tissue.
Slashdot Mirror
A computer actively running two operating systems has the complexity of both and the performance of neither. I know car analogies are bad but it's like having two small engines instead of one large engine in your car, with half of the electrical equipment connected to the alternator on one engine, and the other half hooked up to the other one. Sure, if one goes out you can limp along on the other one, but you won't have the functionality of all the electrical stuff - in this analogy, the electrical stuff is your software and the two engines/etc are the operating systems. Most people are better off with one system, because they only have one system to maintain. Granted, if it's down, you lose all functionality, but you're less likely to have a failure in the first place.
So why are hybrid cars so popular?
Besides, a dual-boot computer is not trying to run both operating systems simultaneously, so your analogy doesn't apply. When it is running the Mac OS, the only thing Windows costs you is the space on your hard disk. And vice-versa, when you are running Windows, it is just like having a dedicated Windows machine. There is software (although not yet from Apple) that does let you run OS X and Windows simultaneously. There is definitely a performance cost to this, although even with the beta software it seems to be surprisingly minor.
But the people I'm talking about aren't interested in running two operating systems at once (although that is something that I might do myself). They simply want to have a fall-back option, so that in the event that they run into some kind of a problem with OS X, they can still run Windows and their old software.
So to get back to your car analogy, think of it not as a car with two engines, but as a car with a spare tire in the trunk. You may not ever use it, but you'll feel a lot more comfortable knowing that the spare is there if you ever need it.
Funny--I'm hearing people I wouldn't expect, long-time Wintel users, talking about buying one of the new Macs. It seems there is a lot of pent-up demand for Macs, which has been held back mainly by fear.
What if I get a new Mac and after a few months decide that I actually like Windows better?
What if Apple goes out of business and I can't get software?
What if my employer requires me to use a particular Windows application?
What if a program or game that I want is only available for Windows?
Suddenly, all of these worries have vanished.
While humans are perhaps the best long-distance runners on the planet, horses come close, and are a lot more versatile. In anything other than a marathon, bet on the horse.
One of the influences that played a big role in my own decision to go into biology was a very inspirational high school biology teacher, Ivan Evans. And an assignment he gave my class back in 1967 or so, was to redesign the human body. My own effort was a quadruped with its brain in its chest, a prehensile tail and 4 arms (two jointed, two prehensile).
Didn't think to put the sex organs in its mouth, though...
It might have something to do with all of those other OSes out there where having atleast a two button mouse/trackpad is a requirement to actually using OS effectively.
Perhaps. But even on the Mac, I use the "right click" exclusively. It's just that with a trackpad I find it more convenient and comfortable to access that functionality with a shift key rather than twisting my thumb into an awkward position.
You know I've been hearing this argument for dual boot of OSX and XP for a while, heck even Linux and XP, but it never dawned on me until now how silly this idea is. I mean, if you're doing your work and your play on XP, then just what is it that you're doing on OSX? Browsing the web, listening to music? Both these can be classified as work or play, but putting that aside, why boot into a new OS just to do these simple tasks? This is coming from someone who dual boots Linux and XP, so realize this is just an observation and not a critique.
Well, personally, I would much rather work and play in OS X. But if I have no choice, because I game I want to play is available only for Windows, or because my employer requires me to use a Windows-only application, I'm willing to tolerate Windows for as brief a period as possible before returning to OS X.
I can understand why people like multibutton mice (I do, too), but what is the appeal of a multibutton trackpad as compared to a single button and modifier keys like on the Macbooks? It's not like you are taking your hand away from the pointing device to reach the keyboard--the pad is right under the keyboard, anyway. And every time I have to twist my hand into that awkward position that lets me reach my thumb under my palm to reach the button I want on a two-button trackpad, I feel like I am risking repetitive motion disorder.
So why to people want multibutton trackpads? Is it just inertia--the resistance of people to changing ingrained habits, even awkward and possibly harmful ones? Is there anybody who started out using a Mac style trackpad (one button with modifier keys) who actually prefers a two-button pad?
Apple is probably the candidate that would benefit least from buying TiVo. TiVo's greatest asset is its superior user interface, but Apple is probably the one company that knows as much as TiVo about creating a friendly UI. If Apple wants to expand into the DVR business, it would probably make more sense for them to buy Elgato, who already make an add-on DVR for the Mac.
But my suspicion is this is exactly the opposite direction from where Apple wants to go--rather than providing a means for users to capture TV from broadcast, cable, or satellite, Apple would prefer to replace those distribution channels entirely with internet distribution--something that they are already doing for the iPod. The next step would be to expand to HD, which the newer Macs are able to handle.
You own the hardware on which it runs... a fact that seems to escape you. If the hardware actively hides things from you, under the control of software (and not your control), you don't own it any more. Hence, you don't own the machine.
So what? Without software, the hardware is an expensive doorstop. And unless you intend to write your own operating system from scratch, you can't own the software. The closest you can get is to run Linux, which at least has source available. And Linux runs just fine on the new Macs.
None of those chips are "secret". None of them are designed to preserve the secrecy of software away from the owner of the machine.
Are you sure? So far as I know, the detailed internal structure of the cpu, as well as the internal software--its microcode--are not available to the user. You are in the position of taking the word of the manufacturer that the processor works according to its specifications.
I suggest reading up on what is possible with a TPM -- not only does it allow Apple to create encrypted shell within the Mac, in which you have no idea what software is running or what it is doing (previously you could use a debugger)... but also remote attestation... to force you to run or not run only code that they specify.
And what evidence can you provide that any of these nefarious things are being done by Apple?
The Wikipedia article is pretty good.
what are these inaccuraccies that you speak of?
Newton's "Law" of gravity does not actually predict the orbits of the planets, even though that was what it was created to do. The inaccuracy is particularly evident with respect to the precession of the orbit of Mercury.
Also, I had thought they were "Laws" were simply a proven subset of the "theory"
Nope. To begin with, theories are proved--using the word "proof" in the older sense of "tested." Nevertheless, no matter how extensively proved a theory may be, the possibiilty always remains that some future test will disprove the theory and require that it be discarded or revised, just as happened with Newton's "Laws" of Gravity. An untested idea is known as a hypothesis. The notion that there is some level of certainty at which a theory is elevated to a "Law" is entirely a myth.
Microsoft cannot do this because of the anti-trust rulings and organisations, countries are still combatting them on the things they do still include, like windows media player, internet explroer. etc.
Microsoft didn't get in trouble for including extras with the OS; they got into trouble by trying to tie things like IE so deeply into the OS that anybody who used anybody else's browser would lose critical OS function (well, that and lying about it). Apple has not done this; you lose nothing if you decide that you would rather run Firefox than Safari or Konfabulator instead of Dashboard
Incidently, if you are a Mac owner, and you've paid for every major release of OS X, you've paid about $500 over the last 5 years for your operating system.
However, nearly every major release of the Mac OS has included some nifty additional software that by itself is virtually worth the price of the entire upgrade. Spotlight, iPhoto, Dashboard, etc. This is why Mac users upgrade--not because the old version has quit working (OS X is solid enough that a version one or two revisions ago works fine), but to get the new stuff.
Congratulations all you mugs who bought one of these crippled machines. You don't own it... Apple still does. It was designed to hide things from you, and ensure that Apple can hide what it is actually doing on your machine... as well as implementing DRM in hardware.
This seems kind of fooliwh. You don't actually own either the Mac or Windows OS, anyway. You don't even really "own" Linux--you just get a more generous license. And all computers are full of chips in little sealed packages with their insides hidden away from the consumer.
How, specifically, are these machines "crippled?" What, specifically, does this hardware prevent you from doing that you can do on computers from other manufacturers?
If Apple is going to capitalize on the distrust people have for Microsoft, they need to get OS X 10.4 running on any Wintel box and they need to do it now, and have it for sale on shelves before the eye-candy smoke-and-mirrors that is Vista can be shoved out the door by Microsoft.
I am amazed that anybody could seriously believe that Apple could profit by going head-to-head with Microsoft for its core business. Microsoft has previously shown a willingness to cut prices radically when necessary to protect its near-monopoly. So you have Apple taking on enormously increased support costs, while getting into a price war with a much wealthier competitor? And you think this will benefit Apple?
On the other hand, Apple has had a much better reputation than MS with consumers for a long time, and it hasn't helped them build market share. However, the Forrester report predated the ability to dual boot Windows on new Macs. I'm surprised at the number of Windows owners I'm now seeing talking about buying Macs. It seems that the major obstacle for many people switching to the Apple was the fear of getting locked into OS X and then finding that something they needed was only available for Windows. That concern has now vanished. It will be interesting to see whether that frees up all of this pent-up Apple envy and translates into big sales for Apple.
First of all, science never "proves" anything.
In science, the word "proof" is used in its older meaning of "test," as in "proving ground." It is acknowledged that no amount of scientific proof can establish absolute Truth.
"Law" is a largely obsolete term that means "a simple scientific theory that seems to be reliable." These days, science is moving so fast that hardly anybody presumes to call anything a "law" anymore, no matter how reliable a theory might be. However, for historical reasons, the word "Law" is often retained for older theories, even after they are shown to be wrong. For example, the "Law of Gravity" is still understood to refer to Newton's theory of gravity, even though it has been shown to be inaccurate and has been supplanted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
I've never used Windows, aside from occasionally helping out somebody else. I probably never would, if it is a choice between Windows and OS X, because what I have seen of Windows has not pleased me. But like the OP, I'm now interested in whether there are Windows apps that are useful enough to justify getting a copy of Windows and occasionally dual-booting.
People running Windows will probably always constitute a small fraction of Mac users. So to sell well on the Mac, games will need to be programmed for OS X.
But just as today, most games will not be released for OS X. The difference is that it will now be possible to be a games enthusiast and own a Mac. Since most games pretty much take over the computer, it hardly matters what OS they are running under, anyway.
Word 5 ran faster on some of the later PowerPC Macs than it did on the fastest 68xxx Macs.
I'd be surprised if many people buying Macs with the plan to dual boot on a regular basis. These are people who have been interested in Macs, but are worried.
"What if I buy a Mac and decide that I don't like the Mac OS? I don't want to be locked it!"
"What if there is some critical application that I need but that I can't get for the Mac OS?"
"What if Apple goes out of business (I've heard they've been going out of business for decades) and everybody stops releasing software updates for OS X?"
Windows booting provides a safety net for people who are contemplating making the jump.
And very likely, dual booting is only the first step. Virtualization is already available from a 3rd party vendor. Apple is supposedly going to incorporate some kind of Windows support into the next version of the Mac OS. Perhaps this is just dual booting, but it could just as well be virtualization.
I just spoke to a friend. I'd offered to help her set up wireless for her older Windows laptop, but she told me that she had heard the Apple announcement and had decided to buy a new Mac laptop instead. This is somebody who has never used a Mac; I'd never had any indication that she was interested in Macs.
However, there weren't large numbers of people who already greatly preferred OS/2, and were deterred from using it solely by the inability to run Windows
If Apple releases OS X for all systems, not just Macs, they will be challenging MS for its core business. They will be taking on substantial increased support costs and losing hardware sales (since the Mac OS is a big part of the incentive for purchasing Apple's hardware) while simultaneously getting into an operating system price war with MS, a company with enormously greater financial resources. And if MS chooses to withdraw Office for the OS X, they can cause still further damage to Apple's OS sales. On the other hand, by offering Windows compatibility at the hardware level, Apple generates revenue for MS--Apple could see quite substantial growth in hardware sales without constituting a significant threat to MS's core business, particularly if a significant number of Mac users end up purchasing Windows as a secondary OS.
In contrast, the current path puts Apple in competition with Dell rather than MS. And here Apple has a key advantage, in that they can offer something that Dell cannot, the Mac OS.
Here [slashdot.org] or here [slashdot.org].
Actually, if you follow those links to the original references, it turns out that there is much less substance there than it appears.
But do I really need to point out that nothing could tell our young that smoking was dangerous untils a few years ago? That fuel is bad for the environment? That asbestos was terribly bad for health?
Actually, evidence had been building up for years that smoking was dangerous. It wasn't all resting on shaky retrospective studies. And it was also known that chemicals could induce cancer, through well-established chemical reaction mechanisms. On the other hand, with cell phones we have no known biological mechanism, and just some contradictory retrospective studies to suggest that there might be a danger.
We even got a fireman in France thet got burned to the third degree putting his hands on a cellphone antenna. And noone denied that an antenna could burn someone from 1-10 cm. So when you live 24/7 a few meters below, one wonders if the long time effects might really be null. Cellphones are one thing, relays are another, but they're still part of the same business.
Now this is just foolish. Your stove can burn you, but that doesn't mean that the people in the apartment next door need to worry that it will give them cancer. The ability of microwaves to produce heat is well understood--it is, after all, how microwave cooking works. And enough heat can burn you. But do you seriously imagine that nobody bothered to check whether cell phones could put out enough energy to burn people? We are talking about energy levels that are multiple orders of magnitude below that required to heat tissue.