iMac Pro's Space Gray Magic Keyboard, Magic Mouse 2, Magic Trackpad 2 now available indivi...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    hexclock said:
    I'm pleased, but I don't understand the pricing. On Apple's web site in Canada the Space Grey mouse, trackpad, and keyboard all cost $30 more than the silver/white equivalent. I don 't understand why they would cost more, much less why so MUCH more.
    The keyboard, mouse, and trackpad are $20.00 more in the US, not 30.
    In the US, yeah, $20 more. In Canada though, it's $30 more, just as the poster said.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 30
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 265member
    Maybe they could add a wire, so I don't need to needlessly radiate my body with a listed probable human carcinogen. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 30
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 7,217administrator
    wozwoz said:
    Maybe they could add a wire, so I don't need to needlessly radiate my body with a listed probable human carcinogen. 
    Bad science, again.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 30
    wozwoz said:
    Maybe they could add a wire, so I don't need to needlessly radiate my body with a listed probable human carcinogen. 
    Or you could just use a wired keyboard and stop posting in every thread about anything wireless with your tired misunderstanding of waves and their affects on people.
    spheric
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 30
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    wozwoz said:
    Maybe they could add a wire, so I don't need to needlessly radiate my body with a listed probable human carcinogen. 
    Bad science, again.
    FYI...
    Not necessarily bad science, just much bigger things to be concerned with when taking signal power, distance, and frequency into account.
    The science saying it's safe based on a lack of direct (ionizing) damage to DNA structure is what is considerably behind, and in fact, bad science.
    That it has some impact, but we don't know to what end or extent, is actually the current state of the science.

    Think of DNA more like a computer, and if we mess up the input or interfere with communication of the circuitry, the computer doesn't have to be melted into a puddle to end up with bad output.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 30
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,803member
    wozwoz said:
    Maybe they could add a wire, so I don't need to needlessly radiate my body with a listed probable human carcinogen. 
    “Listed”...where? 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 30
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 7,217administrator
    cgWerks said:
    wozwoz said:
    Maybe they could add a wire, so I don't need to needlessly radiate my body with a listed probable human carcinogen. 
    Bad science, again.
    FYI...
    Not necessarily bad science, just much bigger things to be concerned with when taking signal power, distance, and frequency into account.
    The science saying it's safe based on a lack of direct (ionizing) damage to DNA structure is what is considerably behind, and in fact, bad science.
    That it has some impact, but we don't know to what end or extent, is actually the current state of the science.

    Think of DNA more like a computer, and if we mess up the input or interfere with communication of the circuitry, the computer doesn't have to be melted into a puddle to end up with bad output.
    Before the foot goes too far in the mouth, one of my responsibilities on the submarine I served on was exposure control and monitoring.

    I'm up to date on the science. The science is not saying that there is impact, it's saying that there could be impact that hasn't been discovered, and that there will be continuing long-term research on it. You know, like science should be.

    Fear-mongering about it, like the poster I called out, is irresponsible.
    edited May 2018
    spheric
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 30
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    Before the foot goes too far in the mouth, one of my responsibilities on the submarine I served on was exposure control and monitoring. 

    I'm up to date on the science. The science is not saying that there is impact, it's saying that there could be impact that hasn't been discovered, and that there will be continuing long-term research on it. You know, like science should be.

    Fear-mongering about it, like the poster I called out, is irresponsible.
    Healthy caution isn't necessarily fear-mongering. But, my point, was that most of the studies to date were looking at the wrong thing.
    Interference with cellular communication and epigenetic impact are what they should be looking at... and science is just barely getting a grasp on the fact that this stuff exists.

    Do I use a wireless keyboard? Yes. Do I use WiFi? Yes? Do I even use a cell phone? Yes. But, sticking a transmitter inside one's ear, or holding a phone against one's head for extended periods, and such, I'd be careful about.

    Science also told us, until recently, not to eat fat and fill ourselves with grains.... and then blame people for their diabetes and lack of exercise. The problem isn't with science, but with the scientists and institutions they are impacted by.
    edited May 2018
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 30
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    cgWerks said:
    The science saying it's safe based on a lack of direct (ionizing) damage to DNA structure is what is considerably behind, and in fact, bad science.
    I'm up to date on the science. The science is not saying that there is impact, it's saying that there could be impact that hasn't been discovered, and that there will be continuing long-term research on it. You know, like science should be.
    Mike, I wonder if you could run a thought by the rest of the staff. I’m seeing (and have only incidentally paid attention to) articles being written about a difference in 5G vs. previous technologies in regard to the potential damage done to the body. It’s totally up to you guys whether the discussion is to be had here, so I’ll ask if you think it’s worthwhile to do an article either dismissing (or addressing) these concerns? Particularly since so many places are trying to pitch 5G as a “landline internet killer,” and so the use case therefor would be broader even than “people who have cell phones.” Thanks!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 30
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 7,217administrator
    cgWerks said:
    The science saying it's safe based on a lack of direct (ionizing) damage to DNA structure is what is considerably behind, and in fact, bad science.
    I'm up to date on the science. The science is not saying that there is impact, it's saying that there could be impact that hasn't been discovered, and that there will be continuing long-term research on it. You know, like science should be.
    Mike, I wonder if you could run a thought by the rest of the staff. I’m seeing (and have only incidentally paid attention to) articles being written about a difference in 5G vs. previous technologies in regard to the potential damage done to the body. It’s totally up to you guys whether the discussion is to be had here, so I’ll ask if you think it’s worthwhile to do an article either dismissing (or addressing) these concerns? Particularly since so many places are trying to pitch 5G as a “landline internet killer,” and so the use case therefor would be broader even than “people who have cell phones.” Thanks!
    Sure, we'll take a fresh look. The last time I checked, with 5G, SAR goes up by only 0.005 -- but the last time I did any deep-dives on it was about 18 months ago.
    tallest skil
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
Sign In or Register to comment.