muppetry

About

Username
muppetry
Joined
Visits
42
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
259
Badges
1
Posts
3,331
  • In new court filing, Apple cites 9 other cases in which FBI asserted the All Writs Act

    prox said:
    I replied to everyone on this board buy all my comments are being deleted. Please Google search Apple China and you will find your answers.
    No - your posts are still there, on page one, and still don't support your assertion.
    magman1979icoco3caliration albanchojbdragondiplicationai46tdknoxsteveh
  • Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton says Apple's Tim Cook 'omitted critical facts' in encryption stance

    His argument, obviously, is spurious although not unexpected. That it is technically possible for phone companies to implement intercepts is not as a result of a legal requirement. And there is nothing illegal about providing end-to-end encryption technology to customers - if there were then this argument would not even be taking place.
    DamnedGentlemenjbdragonchiaronnjb210lostkiwithepixeldocredgeminipahighaciditythubsch
  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    cgWerks said:

    muppetry said:
    Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account? 
    Not pseudo-science, modern science... epigenetics.
    Not incorrect, but incomplete.
    That DNA has far more than one function (i.e.: you don't have to damage the DNA to impact what proteins are produced).

    OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?

    jbdragonStrangeDaysfastasleeptruthbetoldnow
  • Leaked Senate encryption bill called 'ludicrous, dangerous' by security experts

    It surprises me that the implications of proposals of this kind have still not, apparently, been understood by those drafting such bills. Legitimate court orders to hand over data or other material evidence have precedent and make sense, but it is not reasonable to propose that court orders can compel either people or companies to help LE decrypt such data, or provide any non-material assistance or expertise.
    radarthekattdknoxjes42palomineicoco3jbdragonbadmonk
  • In new court filing, Apple cites 9 other cases in which FBI asserted the All Writs Act

    If that is as it appears to be, then the FBI's credibility score just lost a good few points.
    cincymacai46calitdknoxbaconstanglostkiwi
  • In new court filing, Apple cites 9 other cases in which FBI asserted the All Writs Act

    roake said:
    muppetry said:
    If that is as it appears to be, then the FBI's credibility score just lost a good few points.
    I didn't realize that they still had any points left to lose.
    I believe the score can go negative.
    icoco3jbdragonai46palomine
  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    cgWerks said:
    muppetry said:
    As for whether wireless signals are harmful in some other way - it has been extensively investigated. The only significant interaction of GHz RF with organic material is direct excitation of rotational modes in polarized molecules - a mechanism of direct heating. Since we know the radiation characteristics of the antennas involved, the radiated output power, and the absorbance characteristics of relevant molecules, it is relatively trivial to bound the heating effect in nearby organic matter. 
    What about interference with cellular communication or impact on gene expression?
    If you're not looking at the right stuff, it's pretty hard to say it isn't having an impact. Hopefully it isn't having a substantial negative impact. But the kind of impact this article addresses (and the studies I've ever seen) aren't taking into account the advances in our scientific understanding from the last decade or two.

    Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account? 
    jbdragonStrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    ruoma said:
    You seriously dissapoint me appleinsider :( This is such a misleading click-baity article.

    Has really no one read the following article? Just google “EU 5G warning”.
    https://ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/


    “(Örebro, Sweden) Sept. 13, 2017

    Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.”

    “With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”

    “Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”


    And yet in this entire thread I still haven't seen a single citation of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating any of these alleged effects - just links to newspaper articles, "health newsletters", petitions and unsupported assertions of harm. 
    StrangeDaysfastasleep