The cult leader is dead! Long live the cult leader!

[Leo]

I'll only say that disguising "people who agree with me" as "independent thinkers" isn't going to fool anyone here.

I completely agree because I'm an independent thinker.

[Buck Turgidson]

I did not equate Steve Jobs with Hitler - just made the point that it is perfectly alright to wish death on someone, and that they both led fanatics - otherwise they were  different.  There are assholes in the world whose death would result in a net improvement for all. 

Mia, you have political correctness down pat - you should write a Dear Mia column on morality - seniors & hippies would love it.  Lucy could be your co-editor.  For the record, you are the only peron who posted here who I would not call an independent thinker - you are chained to PC dogma from which you may never escape.  Even so you are free to disagree with me.  That said it sounds like someone has crushed your dreams, and it is a shame that you don't strive to make the world a better place - cynicism is such a fucking bore, and amounts to intellectual laziness.

     You claim he has *most likely* given cancer to thousands of children because of the proliferation of cellphones during the adolescent/teen years. I'm not sure where you live, but most 'kids' that have cell phones that i see arnt iphones, they are "dumb-phones" or androids. I don't see what the iphone itself had to do with this, its simply a requirement in today's society to be able to call or text at any time. Ive had a cellphone since i was 15(ish). Never had anything but your basic free dumb-phone. That was before the first iphone came out.

The whole "phones causing cancer" thing is oxshit anyway.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904800304576472232980823392.html

A European study involving nearly 1,000 participants has found no link between cellular-phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents, a group that may be particularly sensitive to phone emissions.

Let's checkin on you in a few years - that study was funded by the cell phone industry - check your sources moron.

[Brian]

i noticed you completely ignored my post and went right for the easy to dispute topic, the scientific study someone that wasnt me posted.

and for the record, this seems to be the consensus among everyone
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
we don't know for a fact it causes cancer, but its a strong possibility.

and if you look into most studies on the topic. they almost all say that the further away from your body the actual phone is, the less radiation is absorbed. the iphone revolutionized the way we text with its auto correct and full qwerty keyboard that was actually a reasonable size.

have some texting vs iphone sales stats.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Apple_iPhone#History_and_availability <<cant hotlink to image do to file type restrictions


texts per month. so before 07 there were about 20 billion texts sent every month. after the iphone came out, it went up to 30 every month. that's a 150% increase to the total texts used. you can probably safely assume that this also means a decrease in the total amount of phone calls made.

[Leo]

so before 07 there were about 20 billion texts sent every month. after the iphone came out, it went up to 30 every month. that's a 150% increase to the total texts used. you can probably safely assume that this also means a decrease in the total amount of phone calls made.

That's a terrible use of statistics. Just because texts went up says nothing about calls. I'm ashamed at you for this failure, brian.

[Brian]

stfu leo. ill stab you in the fucking eye.

also, my logic is actually sounder then grilled slugs's when he claims that kids use cellphones more because of the iphone. at least i had some stats to make my theory look decent.

* Brian is quite drunk.

[Arsenal 10]

No! Wait, I remember now. The saying is "don't hate the player, hate the game." Not any of that oxshit I (and brian) was talking about earlier. >_>

[Snowbound Milk]

also, my logic is actually sounder then grilled slugs's when he claims that kids use cellphones more because of the iphone. at least i had some stats to make my theory look decent.

Only 41% of RIAers would agree with you.

See, I can make stats too.

[undiscoveredbum]

     You claim he has *most likely* given cancer to thousands of children because of the proliferation of cellphones during the adolescent/teen years. I'm not sure where you live, but most 'kids' that have cell phones that i see arnt iphones, they are "dumb-phones" or androids. I don't see what the iphone itself had to do with this, its simply a requirement in today's society to be able to call or text at any time. Ive had a cellphone since i was 15(ish). Never had anything but your basic free dumb-phone. That was before the first iphone came out.

The whole "phones causing cancer" thing is oxshit anyway.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904800304576472232980823392.html

A European study involving nearly 1,000 participants has found no link between cellular-phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents, a group that may be particularly sensitive to phone emissions.

Let's checkin on you in a few years - that study was funded by the cell phone industry - check your sources moron.

And that invalidates the study somehow?

But how about this?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/16/cancer-cellphones-idUSLDE64F0J420100516

Or this?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/05/huge-scandinavian-study-suggests-no-link-between-mobiles-and-brain-cancer-so-relax/

Believe what you want, and shut the fuck up, because I'm done here.

[Buck Turgidson]

Holy cow - that is a lot of stupid shit.  Let me point it out for you:

texts per month. so before 07 there were about 20 billion texts sent every month. after the iphone came out, it went up to 30 every month. that's a 150% increase to the total texts used. you can probably safely assume that this also means a decrease in the total amount of phone calls made.

If you are going to quote a heap of unconnected stats, then opine randomly about calls being made, just skip the stats.  My best counter to this is to say that cell calls have gone up as well, since there are more phones in the market - at least this is more logical.  And who says texting doesn't cause cancer?  The messages still go over the same network, using the same transmitter.  WHat makes me laugh is people who think they are dodging the cancer by using bluetooth or a wired mike, then put the phone in their pocket (ie right next to their balls, pancreas, kidneys, prostate, and/or uterus).  That's like jumping out of one lane to dodge a car and getting smacked by another.

so before 07 there were about 20 billion texts sent every month. after the iphone came out, it went up to 30 every month. that's a 150% increase to the total texts used. you can probably safely assume that this also means a decrease in the total amount of phone calls made.

That's a terrible use of statistics. Just because texts went up says nothing about calls. I'm ashamed at you for this failure, brian.

I am not ashamed at Brian, but I hope he has learned something by your snide repartée.

stfu leo. ill stab you in the fucking eye.

also, my logic is actually sounder then grilled slugs's when he claims that kids use cellphones more because of the iphone. at least i had some stats to make my theory look decent.

* Brian is quite aroused by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

No it doesn't.  It makes you look like you don't know how to tie stats and a logical argument together.  Notice I am not quoting any stats - once you go down that path, some idiot will smokescreen the argument with false otr irrelevant stats anyhow.  Thanks for illustrating the point.

also, my logic is actually sounder then grilled slugs's when he claims that kids use cellphones more because of the iphone. at least i had some stats to make my theory look decent.

Only 41% of RIAers would agree with you.

See, I can make stats too.

Which study are you quoting Snowbound?  Because I have seen one that says that 59% disagree with Brian.  It doesn't say anyything about the rest.  No, wait I found the section - it says 59% disagree with Brian, 19% are hungover, 16% have run out of cream for that itch, and 7% can't count.  Oh - I see your extrapolation now.  Good correction.

Or this?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/05/huge-scandinavian-study-suggests-no-link-between-mobiles-and-brain-cancer-so-relax/

Believe what you want, and shut the fuck up, because I'm done here.

Are you kidding?  Quoting a Scandanavian study on cell phone usage?  In the home of Nokia?  That's like quoting a Texan study on Global Warming.  Sorry for the generalisation, but the media are whores to their home industries, because guess what, they sell ads.  And researchers are worse whores than that.  So logically, you should only trust reports that have something bad to say about products, technology...etc.  Ok I am just being a prick now.

Sorry I said Mia was the only non-independent thinker, but when someone tells someone else to shut up and that they are done, they just don't have the marbles for independent thought.  Incidentally that's exactly what Mia did, and she is a teenage virgin.  U-Bum, you were done before you even opened your mouth...lol

[Fake from State Jarm]

funniest shit I've read in a while, someone tell kenny one of his alts has developed sentience

[Buck Turgidson]

funniest shit I've read in a while, someone tell kenny one of his alts has developed sentience

Yeah I am having a blast.  Just wish Brian hadn't brought Margaret up.  It reminds me of the palsy cock-shake she promised me and that I will never collect on...

[undiscoveredbum]

You aren't even trying at this point.

[Snowbound Milk]

I never try. Trying is a sin in these halls.

[Buck Turgidson]

You aren't even trying at this point.

Hey I thought you were done.

[undiscoveredbum]

You believed me?

[Brian]

Notice I am not quoting any stats - once you go down that path, some idiot will smokescreen the argument with false otr irrelevant stats anyhow.  Thanks for illustrating the point.

Never Let The Facts Get In The Way Of A The Truth.

[Snowbound Milk]

I am the a truth.

[Buck Turgidson]

You believed me?

Yeah I did.  And I was really disappointed because you have the single coolest avatar ever.

Notice I am not quoting any stats - once you go down that path, some idiot will smokescreen the argument with false otr irrelevant stats anyhow.  Thanks for illustrating the point.

Never Let The Facts Get In The Way Of A The Truth.

Facts should be used to substantiate the truth, not the other way around.  If, for example, you said that Apple caused an increase in texting at the expense of cell phone calls up front, then quoted the appropriate stats to make that point, then I might have listened instead of ridiculed you.  But even that would be predicated on the idea that cell phone calls alone are *potentially* responsible for cancer, and that texting is safe.  Also, the question is whether it can cause only brian cancer (lol), and cannot be connected to, for example, anus cancer because people keep their phones in the pockets.

Scientific method starts with a hypothesis that you prove or disprove - that is how you use facts and not get used by them...

[Brian]

     Fine, since you are going to start complaining I'm not getting good enough info and that my logic is faulty have some facts.


     Here is one about texting being better.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

Spoiler for Hiden:

Precaution
 Precautionary principle

In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.[81] It follows the recommendations of the European Community for environmental risks. According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches are prudent avoidance principle and as low as reasonably practicable. Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased tonicularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern.[82] They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk toniculation (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with as low as reasonably practicable levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and earphone technologies such as Bluetooth headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.[citation needed]
[edit] Precautionary measures and health advisories

In May 2011, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer announced it was classifying electromagnetic fields from mobile phones and other sources as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and advised the public to adopt safety measures to reduce exposure, like use of hands-free devices or texting.

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[3] France,[83] Germany,[84] and Sweden,[85] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:

    Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.
    Keep the mobile phone away from the body.
    Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.

The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.[86] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[87] and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale[88] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[89]

Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children.[90]

     Have one about a bunch of different studies, none point it any kind of definitive answer. It also goes over pretty much all the facts about radiation, how its calculated and such. A good read if I do say so myself.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Nonionizing%20Radiation.pdf


     After much looking I have been able to only find studies saying that "Consumers with smartphones increasingly view phone calls as so last century," not apple alone. But since we agreed smartphones were basically started by apple I felt it still had merits in this post.

http://mobilenow.yankeegroup.com/articles/24621/mobile-phone-users-text-more-than-talk/


     And here is a giant ass list of radiation produced by they claim all, but I'm sure its just most, cellphones. apparently the iphone isn't even close to the worst offender when it comes to radiation. And, surprisingly, many dumbphones are at the top of the list. Notice how radiation drops when 'worn on the body'
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allphones=1
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Apple/iPhone+3G+S/


Now, if you wouldn't mind I would like to see you post some facts insted of speculation. You dont win your point be proving mine to be wrong.

Spoiler for Hiden:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY</a>

[Buck Turgidson]

First of all Appe did not start smartphones.  They existed long before Apple got into the mobile business.  I think Nokia was probably first with the Communicator, but I am not sure - that was in 1998-9.

Ok I hate to like the wikipedia, becauce there is so much nonsense on the site, but we have to start with the WHo recommendation that more long-term research is needed.  Historically, they are at the same point that the tobacco industry was at when they argued there was no conclusive link between smoking and cancer.  Innocent until proven guilty has some drawbacks, and lets corporate citizens get away with murder.  Still, I criticize the source because it is wikipedia...

The Netfiles bit is indeed a good read.  The kind of introspectively scientific document that I would grab on my way to the john.  That's a compliment.  But it does not say anything about ass cancer.  It does insinuate at the beginning that texting could be a cancer averting strategy, but there is no talk of the potential increase in finger and thumb cancer.  Also, I notice a lot of people rest their phones on their balls when they text.  That can't be good.

Mobilenow is also interesting but says nothing about a decrease in phone calls, just a relative increase in texting.  Which is logical, since texting DID NOT EXIST until quite recently lol.  Smartphones are so last century.  People are starting to carry supercomputers in their phones.  The future is geniusphones.  For fuck's sake, speak up Siri!

The last 2 bits were very interesting since I have a Blackberry, and just upgraded from a 9000...

Now I said I didn't want to get dragged into quoting inane facts, and I won't.  Instead of quoting reams of contradicting nonsense, I will go with a statement that is clean and simple, and show you how common sense & knowledge is at least as reasonable as quoting second-hand 'facts':

The human body contains a huge electrical system.  Physio-therapists use electrical currents to stimulate muscles.  Sometimes, we kill people by electrocuting them.  Electrical systems can be affected by eletromagenetic (ionizing or not) radiation.  Put your phone next to your computer speakers and call yourself (you will hear the distinct chugga-chugga of the GSM or CDMA network calling for baby).  Try it with a text - same thing.  You can cook meat with electical currents and EM radiation.  Have a look at the prisoner after the deed is done, or cook up a dog on the 'radar-range'.  Microwaves are basically big cell phones you can't talk on.  We are made of meat.  All of this is verifiable with your own senses, and you don't need a fucking PHD to tell you what you are witnessing.

I don't mean to be a bitch, but facts in this case are a distraction from common sense.  Steve Jobs was even smarter than that - he got people hooked on bullshit like 'lifestyle' and 'life on the go', and they forgot that they were handing their children loaded guns and initiating a class war with the underpriviledged, who will one day rise up and demand blood or state-provided geniusphones.