That's poor programmers generally believe. They're wrong, but they use that excuse.
Apparently poor programmers understand the definition of words. If you plan for something, then you, by definition, acknowledge that it is a possibility. That means the thing is no longer "unforeseen." You foresaw it as a potential issue.
For example, if someone had programmed the Mars Climate Orbiter to convert metric to imperial units if there was a conflict, then it wouldn't have been an unforeseen problem (and would have fixed itself). It wasn't anticipated, therefore a $651 million operation ended up disintegrating into the Martian atmosphere.
Obviously you should try to handle as many eventualities as you can, and then build in error checking to try and make unexpected bugs cause the least amount of issue (and preferably generate a log to identify where the failure was). But no matter how skilled the programmer is they cannot create software solutions to directly handle unforeseen problems, they can only create general error handling to minimize unexpected issues.
Cars offer a bit more than "easy mobility." I assume by your logic if you're in a situation where an ambulance has to come and save your life you'd rather it stay away, because cars are dangerous, right?
That's the problem, though, you can't "prove safety." We've already established that science has been unable to find a direct (or really even an indirect) link between cell phone use and significant health effects. I use the word "significant" because merely affecting you is not sufficient to warrant regulation, just as coffee affects you but is considered safe to consume.
No conspiracy is necessary. This is the normal scientific process. A scientist can't say neutrinos are safe, either, but we're pretty sure they are. Who knows? Fifty years from now we may find out our atmosphere is the only thing protecting us from the little buggers, and without neutrino shielding (and yes, those who know what I'm talking about are laughing) we won't be able to survive space travel!
Conspiracies take effort, time, and money. Ignorance doesn't. It's far more likely that, assuming cell phones are as dangerous as you think, we just don't know about it than some group silence to benefit the wireless industry. If big, rich companies could so easily prevent health information from existing we'd still all be smoking and driving cars with leaded gasoline. If the oil and tobacco industries can't do it, with an astronomically higher budget than the wireless industry, I find your hypothesis that "lack of information equals suppressed information" to be pretty weak and not supported by available evidence.
This is the problem with people who aren't scientists interpreting the results of scientific research without understanding the nature of science itself. Scientists think in theories and hypothesis. These things are inherently unstable and tend to change constantly as new information is obtained. They also tend to conclude things along the lines of "might do this" or "may affect that."
The public, on the other hand, tends to think in laws and "bottom-line-up-front." Coffee may cause cancer? Headline: SCIENTISTS LINK COFFEE TO CANCER! ARE YOU IN DANGER? Global warming might cause an ice age in the future? New Movie: THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: WATCH AS THE MODERN EARTH FREEZES IN A FEW DAYS!
I can't even imagine how much frustration this causes in the lab. And if you brought up your "all the scientists are saying that cell phones probably doesn't have significant health effects with a handful of exceptions which say they might" theory as saying "all scientists know cell phones are bad and are being paid to say otherwise" you'd probably be the cooler discussion on idiots.
Who knows? Maybe you're right, and in a few years I'll be buying those crappy RF sleeves and turning off my phone at night. More likely, a new FCC policy will be created to force phone manufacturers to comply with whatever safety standards don't cause the issue. But worrying about it now is like worrying about an alien invasion. Could we be invaded by aliens? Sure, it's possible. Am I going to buy a bunker, you know, just in case?
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
Ok, your turn. Where does this say the government can restrict content?
Yeah, that's right! The internet has never been regulated by Title II in the past, and if it had been, we wouldn't have had the free and open internet we have today?
(Wait, what? Title II regulations applied to dial-up? And it didn't destroy the internet, and in fact there was more competition between dial-up companies than there ever has been among broadband?)
Er, I mean net neutrality rules will remove free speech!
(The actual net neutrality rules specifically forbid prioritizing some content over other content, which is the entire purpose of net neutrality in the first place? And if I read paragraph A.15 of the rules there is a "No Blocking" provision that would immediately make any attempt to use these rules to block legal content impossible?)
Er, um, do your research! Actually, only do your research from my site! Don't look anywhere else, that would be counterproductive...I mean, full of lies!
No, no, you aren't understanding our point. The ISPs want to restrict users' viewing ability and this provision won't let them. The government is forbidding your friendly neighborhood ISP from properly restricting your internet access!
In a truly free country, corporations can do whatever they want without regulatory interference, because corporations always have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Because that's what our Austrian school economics blog tells us. No, don't ask for real world examples, I'm talking about a proper theory that only works without the government! Or math!
You crazy liberals and your "regulations" are ruining this country!
Well, that's why we were able to permanently shut down The Pirate Bay and Wikileaks, both of which are no longer on the internet due to U.S. regulations.
No, stop, don't look them up, I swear we got those ones for good this time. Look, we raided their headquarters and everything. Well, maybe twice. Or was it three times? Er, why won't they go away...
Very true, so when you start getting burns from your cell phone, I highly recommend you stop touching it (and getting a new one).
I think you might notice if your flesh is being cooked; if you put your hand on a hot stove, I doubt you think "huh, this might be a harmful effect." It's probably closer to "[bleep] [bleep] that hurts like a [bleep]!"
It sounds to me like you've already decided that cell phones are dangerous and any research done that indicates otherwise must have been paid for by wireless carriers. This sounds, how do I put this, rather unscientific?
I also like how the "independent studies" must inherently be unbiased, because reasons. Why can't I just as easily make the assumption that any study showing that cell phones are dangerous is funded by people trying to harm the wireless industry?
It's caused by many things, usually exposure to UV sunlight or artificial UV light. UV light, even in the non-ionizing spectrum, can cause free radicals to induce cellular damage, which can be carcinogenic [1].
You know what it's not caused by? Cell phones. I could not find a single study that had a conclusive case of skin cancer linked to cell phone usage. Cell phones have the same carcinogenetic rating as coffee, as in, it could cause cancer, we've just never seen any evidence it actually does.
Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from radiation therapy, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk (1).
The only known biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating; however, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. ... Although there have been some concerns that radiofrequency energy from cell phones held closely to the head may affect the brain and other tissues, to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.
It is generally accepted that damage to DNA is necessary for cancer to develop. However, radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage in cells, and it has not been found to cause cancer in animals or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens in animals (3–5).
Whatever. I can get "damage or effects" from eating spicy foods (usually in my bowels). If there were thousands of experiments showing that "damage" was occurring at levels less than a standard mobile phone I find it interesting that a medical journal and the government website for cancer research would both claim there's no evidence that cell phone radiation can cause cancer. After all, that's a pretty significant claim; if there really were thousands or even hundreds of contrary claims, I wonder why they chose the word "no" rather than "little." In fact, the entire page repeatedly states there is no known link between cell phones and cancer.
...and read the very portion that you quoted. The second part, specifically.
"While these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.
Now, read that again. The first part, that whoever has interpreted certain reports to suggest a link (I refuse to register to read what should be a public document) between wireless device use and cancer is completely irrelevant when placed into context of the second sentence. It flat out says that there is no scientific evidence linking wireless device use to cancer or other illness. I see the phrase "other illness" and place it next to the beginning of the sentence, which says "no scientific evidence."
Shit, I'm glad Im [sic] not as embarresed [sic] as you at this point.
It's not OK by my standards, it's OK by the standards of the consensus of the entire scientific field on the subject. A tiny percentage of research that disagrees with the overall consensus does not make the majority wrong.
You're acting exactly like the anti-global warming crowd.
"Well, there's no evidence global warming is really happening." "Here's a ton of research showing quite clearly the planet is heating up." "Well, there's no evidence humans are causing it." "Here's a ton of research showing that it's progressing faster than ever before, that human activity would scientifically create the effects we're seeing, and that, given the age of the planet, we should be seeing a less drastic increase, it's extremely likely humans are significantly accelerating the process." "Well, there are these three guys that disagree." "And here are ninety-seven that say those guys are wrong."
The worst part is that once you actually have to show your evidence rather than smug "Hey look, an ignorant person" comments everything disagrees with your premise. You're totally reaching for even the tiniest thing that might indicate you're right, like pointing out that there isn't a "zero" chance of cancer or that there could be "other illness." You even point out what happens when someone is living within an inch of a cell phone tower like this is actually something that happens.
The problem is you're essentially quoting the obligatory "we think this is safe, but just to defend us from lawyers, we're going to say it might hurt you" comments tacked on to virtually everything. You've sat here arguing with people saying "cell phones aren't dangerous" and quoted a bunch of scientists saying "cell phones aren't dangerous, as far as we can tell" and interpreting that to mean cell phones are very dangerous and scientists just haven't figured it out...yet.
This is dumb, and you're upset that I pointed it out. It's OK, that's part of the learning process; sometimes you have to admit you're wrong and move on. Good luck!
P.S. When you start off by complaining that someone doesn't have a "good retort" and "worthless talk" it's probably better not to follow it up by pure ad hom. Sure, I used plenty of ad hom too...but I backed it up with facts. I didn't even have to bother with research, either, because you proved yourself wrong without my help. It'll only hurt for a little bit!
Apology? Did you actually read what you linked? Because if you had you'd have read that it's a Group 2B carcinogen, in other words, possibly carcinogenetic. It's in the same category as gasoline (in general, including fumes), Citrus Red 2 (FDA approved food dye), pickled vegetables, and coffee.
All common, everyday objects that cause panic in absolutely no one. You are much more likely to be killed by a gasoline fire than gasoline caused cancer.
Continuing on, reading the first paragraph under "effects", states the following (emphasis mine):
A 2007 assessment published by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)[6] concludes that the three lines of evidence, viz. animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies, indicate that "exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans".
In fact, most of the rest of the page is filled with studies that didn't link cell phones and cancer.
Holy crap, if you're going to quote Wikipedia, at least make sure the page agrees with you first.
Did you know that, any time there's a thunderstorm outside, you could be struck by lightning and killed? Where are all the "CAUTION: LIGHTNING HAZARD" signs outside? Also, did you know your car is filled with gasoline, which could explode due to static electricity? Your dashboard is suspiciously missing the "MAY EXPLODE ANY SECOND" sign. As a matter of fact, just to be safe, we should tattoo "CAUTION: MAY CAUSE DEATH FROM CRANIAL BLOOD PRESSURE" around your skull because you just never know when you'll drop dead from an aneurysm.
The mere fact that something is potentially harmful does not rate a warning or even fear. A one of friend's husband has permanent brain damage because he tripped on a sidewalk and managed to hit his head just wrong. He was sober, fully rested, and healthy...he just had bad luck and a momentary lapse.
You've been going through this thread talking about "potential harm" in something that has virtually no evidence or logical basis. You're clearly trying to rationalize your irrational phobia (are you Stephen King, by any chance?). You probably believe that cell phones are an explosive hazard at gas stations and can bring down airplanes too. Sure, it's possible. It's possible a sudden solar event will create enough heat in our atmosphere to destroy all life on earth, too, but I don't see too many people freaking out about it.
By all means, we should keep researching it. Who knows? Maybe there's something involved that does make them risky (which can probably be fixed...they didn't ban gasoline when they found out adding lead was a bad idea, they fixed the problem). But wild speculation based on "hints" that non-ionizing radiation at extremely low wattage is going to start mass killing people only makes you look like a hysterical conspiracy theorist.
And if you're actually saying there's a only tiny risk, well, duh, there's a tiny risk to literally everything. That doesn't mean we need a warning label and for people to start treating cell phones like they're made of plutonium. The sun is full of dangerous, unpredictable radiation that it spews at us on a daily basis yet life goes on. There's a difference between "reasonable precaution" and "ridiculous overreaction."
You might want to consider shifting back a bit towards the former, because right now you're practically tipping over the latter.
Copyright should never, ever, in a million billion years, be permitted to cover meetings. If the purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works, and the work in question is meetings, we need to put a stop to this immediately before all human productivity grinds to an absolute halt.
On the post: Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagination Gap
Apparently poor programmers understand the definition of words. If you plan for something, then you, by definition, acknowledge that it is a possibility. That means the thing is no longer "unforeseen." You foresaw it as a potential issue.
For example, if someone had programmed the Mars Climate Orbiter to convert metric to imperial units if there was a conflict, then it wouldn't have been an unforeseen problem (and would have fixed itself). It wasn't anticipated, therefore a $651 million operation ended up disintegrating into the Martian atmosphere.
Obviously you should try to handle as many eventualities as you can, and then build in error checking to try and make unexpected bugs cause the least amount of issue (and preferably generate a log to identify where the failure was). But no matter how skilled the programmer is they cannot create software solutions to directly handle unforeseen problems, they can only create general error handling to minimize unexpected issues.
On the post: Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Captain Obvious
This needs to happen. Now.
On the post: Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?
Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No conspiracy is necessary. This is the normal scientific process. A scientist can't say neutrinos are safe, either, but we're pretty sure they are. Who knows? Fifty years from now we may find out our atmosphere is the only thing protecting us from the little buggers, and without neutrino shielding (and yes, those who know what I'm talking about are laughing) we won't be able to survive space travel!
Conspiracies take effort, time, and money. Ignorance doesn't. It's far more likely that, assuming cell phones are as dangerous as you think, we just don't know about it than some group silence to benefit the wireless industry. If big, rich companies could so easily prevent health information from existing we'd still all be smoking and driving cars with leaded gasoline. If the oil and tobacco industries can't do it, with an astronomically higher budget than the wireless industry, I find your hypothesis that "lack of information equals suppressed information" to be pretty weak and not supported by available evidence.
This is the problem with people who aren't scientists interpreting the results of scientific research without understanding the nature of science itself. Scientists think in theories and hypothesis. These things are inherently unstable and tend to change constantly as new information is obtained. They also tend to conclude things along the lines of "might do this" or "may affect that."
The public, on the other hand, tends to think in laws and "bottom-line-up-front." Coffee may cause cancer? Headline: SCIENTISTS LINK COFFEE TO CANCER! ARE YOU IN DANGER? Global warming might cause an ice age in the future? New Movie: THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: WATCH AS THE MODERN EARTH FREEZES IN A FEW DAYS!
I can't even imagine how much frustration this causes in the lab. And if you brought up your "all the scientists are saying that cell phones probably doesn't have significant health effects with a handful of exceptions which say they might" theory as saying "all scientists know cell phones are bad and are being paid to say otherwise" you'd probably be the cooler discussion on idiots.
Who knows? Maybe you're right, and in a few years I'll be buying those crappy RF sleeves and turning off my phone at night. More likely, a new FCC policy will be created to force phone manufacturers to comply with whatever safety standards don't cause the issue. But worrying about it now is like worrying about an alien invasion. Could we be invaded by aliens? Sure, it's possible. Am I going to buy a bunker, you know, just in case?
Um, no.
On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding
Re:
Please, do go on.
On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding
Re:
(Wait, what? Title II regulations applied to dial-up? And it didn't destroy the internet, and in fact there was more competition between dial-up companies than there ever has been among broadband?)
Er, I mean net neutrality rules will remove free speech!
(The actual net neutrality rules specifically forbid prioritizing some content over other content, which is the entire purpose of net neutrality in the first place? And if I read paragraph A.15 of the rules there is a "No Blocking" provision that would immediately make any attempt to use these rules to block legal content impossible?)
Er, um, do your research! Actually, only do your research from my site! Don't look anywhere else, that would be counterproductive...I mean, full of lies!
-PushBackNow
On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, that's not what happened? Er, yes, it did! And if you disagree you're a liberal communist! Regulation is bad!
(let me see that script again...)
- PushBackNow
On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding
Re: Re:
In a truly free country, corporations can do whatever they want without regulatory interference, because corporations always have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Because that's what our Austrian school economics blog tells us. No, don't ask for real world examples, I'm talking about a proper theory that only works without the government! Or math!
You crazy liberals and your "regulations" are ruining this country!
- PushBackNow
On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding
Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
No, stop, don't look them up, I swear we got those ones for good this time. Look, we raided their headquarters and everything. Well, maybe twice. Or was it three times? Er, why won't they go away...
[sobs]
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's with the xkcd chart?
I think you might notice if your flesh is being cooked; if you put your hand on a hot stove, I doubt you think "huh, this might be a harmful effect." It's probably closer to "[bleep] [bleep] that hurts like a [bleep]!"
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also like how the "independent studies" must inherently be unbiased, because reasons. Why can't I just as easily make the assumption that any study showing that cell phones are dangerous is funded by people trying to harm the wireless industry?
Sure, that's silly. See a pattern?
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what it's not caused by? Cell phones. I could not find a single study that had a conclusive case of skin cancer linked to cell phone usage. Cell phones have the same carcinogenetic rating as coffee, as in, it could cause cancer, we've just never seen any evidence it actually does.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not so stupid, after all.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"While these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.
Now, read that again. The first part, that whoever has interpreted certain reports to suggest a link (I refuse to register to read what should be a public document) between wireless device use and cancer is completely irrelevant when placed into context of the second sentence. It flat out says that there is no scientific evidence linking wireless device use to cancer or other illness. I see the phrase "other illness" and place it next to the beginning of the sentence, which says "no scientific evidence."
Shit, I'm glad Im [sic] not as embarresed [sic] as you at this point.
sorry for the slam, but keep learning.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're acting exactly like the anti-global warming crowd.
"Well, there's no evidence global warming is really happening."
"Here's a ton of research showing quite clearly the planet is heating up."
"Well, there's no evidence humans are causing it."
"Here's a ton of research showing that it's progressing faster than ever before, that human activity would scientifically create the effects we're seeing, and that, given the age of the planet, we should be seeing a less drastic increase, it's extremely likely humans are significantly accelerating the process."
"Well, there are these three guys that disagree."
"And here are ninety-seven that say those guys are wrong."
The worst part is that once you actually have to show your evidence rather than smug "Hey look, an ignorant person" comments everything disagrees with your premise. You're totally reaching for even the tiniest thing that might indicate you're right, like pointing out that there isn't a "zero" chance of cancer or that there could be "other illness." You even point out what happens when someone is living within an inch of a cell phone tower like this is actually something that happens.
The problem is you're essentially quoting the obligatory "we think this is safe, but just to defend us from lawyers, we're going to say it might hurt you" comments tacked on to virtually everything. You've sat here arguing with people saying "cell phones aren't dangerous" and quoted a bunch of scientists saying "cell phones aren't dangerous, as far as we can tell" and interpreting that to mean cell phones are very dangerous and scientists just haven't figured it out...yet.
This is dumb, and you're upset that I pointed it out. It's OK, that's part of the learning process; sometimes you have to admit you're wrong and move on. Good luck!
P.S. When you start off by complaining that someone doesn't have a "good retort" and "worthless talk" it's probably better not to follow it up by pure ad hom. Sure, I used plenty of ad hom too...but I backed it up with facts. I didn't even have to bother with research, either, because you proved yourself wrong without my help. It'll only hurt for a little bit!
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All common, everyday objects that cause panic in absolutely no one. You are much more likely to be killed by a gasoline fire than gasoline caused cancer.
Continuing on, reading the first paragraph under "effects", states the following (emphasis mine):In fact, most of the rest of the page is filled with studies that didn't link cell phones and cancer.
Holy crap, if you're going to quote Wikipedia, at least make sure the page agrees with you first.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re:
The mere fact that something is potentially harmful does not rate a warning or even fear. A one of friend's husband has permanent brain damage because he tripped on a sidewalk and managed to hit his head just wrong. He was sober, fully rested, and healthy...he just had bad luck and a momentary lapse.
You've been going through this thread talking about "potential harm" in something that has virtually no evidence or logical basis. You're clearly trying to rationalize your irrational phobia (are you Stephen King, by any chance?). You probably believe that cell phones are an explosive hazard at gas stations and can bring down airplanes too. Sure, it's possible. It's possible a sudden solar event will create enough heat in our atmosphere to destroy all life on earth, too, but I don't see too many people freaking out about it.
By all means, we should keep researching it. Who knows? Maybe there's something involved that does make them risky (which can probably be fixed...they didn't ban gasoline when they found out adding lead was a bad idea, they fixed the problem). But wild speculation based on "hints" that non-ionizing radiation at extremely low wattage is going to start mass killing people only makes you look like a hysterical conspiracy theorist.
And if you're actually saying there's a only tiny risk, well, duh, there's a tiny risk to literally everything. That doesn't mean we need a warning label and for people to start treating cell phones like they're made of plutonium. The sun is full of dangerous, unpredictable radiation that it spews at us on a daily basis yet life goes on. There's a difference between "reasonable precaution" and "ridiculous overreaction."
You might want to consider shifting back a bit towards the former, because right now you're practically tipping over the latter.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, man, keep the tinfoil on.
On the post: City Of Inglewood Allotted $50,000 To Hire A Lawyer Flagrantly Abuse Copyright Law To Try To Silence A Citizen
Humanity, you have been warned!
On the post: Torrent Madness: UK Cybercrime Official Argues That File Sharing Is A Gateway Drug To Crime
Re: Oh, No! I must be a criminal!
This must be true because you used the torrentz and my grandson said so.
Sincerely,
You Congressman
Next >>