hydrogen

davgreg said:

I work in the field of Medical Radiology and would offer this:

Some health effects from exposure to various forms of radiation are slow to develop where others are quickly apparent. One can get an immediate burn from certain doses of radiation where a lower dose, over time, can produce different health effects. The delayed effects can take many decades to become apparent.

I am not taking a side in this and suspect these ambulance chasers are motivated by deep pocket money more than protecting the public. However, do not dismiss concerns about frequent low level exposure to radiation out of hand. Beyond cancers, radiation exposure from x-rays has been linked to things like cataracts. Although the power levels of a cell phone are relatively small, operating cell phones are commonly held against the head and the potency of the radiation follows the inverse square.

There is a repeating story where technologies are often used before the health impacts are properly understood. Within living memory of some, fluoroscopes were used to sell and size shoes- something that is unimaginable today.

Beyond the tin foil hat crowd and the ambulance chasers there is a place for serious study and consideration of the potential adverse health effects of holding a radio device so close to your head and in your pocket- close to your reproductive organs - frequently. You should not be fearful or alarmed, but should pay attention to well done scientific study.

blastdoor said:

If you want to argue over what is or is not "natural," I think there's a case to be made that things like monopolists, dictators, oppression, and violence are more "natural" than free markets, democracy, cooperation, and peace. In nature, it's a brutish battle to the death for survival. It has only been through human civilization that these other ideas (free markets, democracy, etc) have come into being. I certainly prefer the artificial human construct of peace than the natural state of conflict. 

Perhaps the more appropriate word here is "inevitable" or maybe better yet "most likely." Gates thought it was most likely (perhaps even inevitable) that Windows would dominate mobile, and that belief is probably what contributed to their failure. 

I think the bigger thing that contributed to the failure of Wintel in mobile is that both Microsoft and Intel were more focused on defending their monopolies than expanding into mobile. They didn't want smartphones to be TOO good at too low a price or else it could threaten their PC business. Intel actually is suffering more from this mistake than Microsoft. Current management at Microsoft has mostly corrected course, but I think Intel is facing very substantial risks right now. I'm not sure they realize how much trouble they're in or what they need to do to get out of it.