Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eric S. Sande esa...@verizon.net wrote: That's about it for now. Good post. I think that the FCC wants industry to get with the various governmental agencies and really get this issue hashed out...finally. I see that President Obama just signed an Executive Order, making it a requirement that the two sides in our federal legislature sit down together to work out a fix for the economy. He finally had to take this draconian, some would say dictatorial step because our Congress critters were essentially refusing to move on the problem, refusing to work with one another. I think the FCC head was trying to say that the time has come for cooperation instead of opposition and to do it for the welfare of our nation. It somehow got done back in the early days of wired telephone service and telcos did not wither and die as a result and we can do it again today with this newer technology that in many ways is supplanting telephone service as being a necessity in the contemporary world. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Creepy or what?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM, John Duncan Yoyo johnduncany...@gmail.com wrote: Boy the prosecution of this could lead to no end of hurt. If the school district caused the taking of naked pictures of underage children wouldn't they be guilty of child pornography? If these pictures were moved between servers of the school it could be construed as the distribution of child pornography. I expect that lots of the kids or their parents will be covering their cameras with a post it note. The school system admits that the computers were rigged so as to be able to take snapshots from a remote location. While they contend that was done in order to be able to identify who was in possession of a computer were it to be stolen, even such use would most likely be illegal, akin to being a warrant-less illegal search. The state of Pennsylvania is already fairly well known as being a testbed for various surveillance methods, most famously in the town of Lancaster where private corporations are used to spy on the citizens. The small town already has more surveillance cameras than most major cities in the United States, and they have plans to install yet more cameras. There is virtually nowhere in Lancaster that one can go without having corporate eyes watching. Pan and zoom cameras are used, and it is alleged that it is not uncommon for cameras to be trained upon the houses of random residents for days at a time with attempts being made to identify and track the movements of each and every person who either comes or goes. Most residents of the town apparently do not like all the spying while most business owners along with police and most town officials think it is great. No big surprise there, of course. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
At 02:01 PM 2/18/2010, tjpa wrote: False! Do your homework before you start betting with my money. Don't understand. I'm not betting and I'm not touching your money. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
At 07:31 PM 2/18/2010, b_s-wilk wrote: We, the people, are the government of the United States. Yes, that's the way it is **supposed** to be. But it isn't, really. The federal government does all sorts of extra-constitutional things, and gets away with it. Who is doing anything about it? Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
At 11:30 PM 2/18/2010, b_s-wilk wrote: I've been amazed at the obscure locations outside the US where I get all bars on my cell phone, even in Mexico near the Belize border, or on remote Greek islands. Similarly, broadband is so fast and pervasive [and cheap] in much of Europe, high in the Pyrenees mountains, miles from the closest small village, with WiFi on nearly empty beaches in Portugal. Cell networks have been the build-out for under-developed countries to increase overall telephone access. And they likely are profitable, since you can add subscribers to a wireless network much cheaper than to a wired network, I would think. But adding cell phone towers to a sparsely populated area that is already served with a telephone land-line network likely isn't profitable. And cell phone circuit bandwidth isn't nearly real broadband Internet, I don't think. Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
At 07:31 PM 2/18/2010, b_s-wilk wrote: We, the people, have our representatives appoint regulators to keep corporations under control. Not really, I don't think. The president appoints the top regulators, with the advice and consent of the senate. But even the top regulators don't have a whole lot of influence. The dirty work of the regulators is done by unelected bureaucrats. Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
At 07:31 PM 2/18/2010, b_s-wilk wrote: That's what unregulated corporate power does. From your comments, that's what you want. You are either an unrepentant corporatist, or very confused. That's your strawman. It's not what I said. Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
I hear this all the time, and even the wacky flyer who killed an IRS agent yesterday spouted much of the same thing. Many times when someone says this, it is because someone else who has called themselves an expert has said it. When push comes to shove, the Supreme Court has always said you guys are wrong. They are the supreme Constitution watchers, and operate on their own. Sometimes no one agrees with their conclusions, but they define the constitution and they say you are wrong. If all these things are unconstitutional then someone would have litigated it a long time ago and the Supreme Court would have declared so. So I do not buy it at all. Stewart (Believe me I am not a lib nor am I a con.) At 11:08 AM 2/19/2010, you wrote: Yes, that's the way it is **supposed** to be. But it isn't, really. The federal government does all sorts of extra-constitutional things, and gets away with it. Who is doing anything about it? Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
At 04:54 PM 2/18/2010, tjpa wrote: You need to take a class in logic. You're probably right. I've been a global warming denier since day one. Which text book to you recommend? Is there an on-line class? Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Creepy or what?
At 08:53 PM 2/18/2010, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Parents: school used webcam to spy on our kid at home By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated February 18, 2010 12:23 PM I don't pay a whole lot of attention, but I don't think I've ever seen a laptop/notebook with a **built-in** webcam. I think I'd be very suspicious of a school system that issued computers with them. Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Creepy or what?
It is the newest and neatest thing for manufacturers to build them in. Most often than not nowadays you will find them standard fare on laptops. We got two netbooks and one laptop in the last year and all of them had built in webcams. Stewart At 11:32 AM 2/19/2010, you wrote: At 08:53 PM 2/18/2010, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Parents: school used webcam to spy on our kid at home By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated February 18, 2010 12:23 PM I don't pay a whole lot of attention, but I don't think I've ever seen a laptop/notebook with a **built-in** webcam. I think I'd be very suspicious of a school system that issued computers with them. Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
If all these things are unconstitutional then someone would have litigated it a long time ago and the Supreme Court would have declared so. So I do not buy it at all. Right. Every time I hear, Show me where in the Constitution is says we can have X, I think, I'll do that as soon as you show me where it says we can have a National Aeronautics and Space Administration. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Creepy or what?
I don't pay a whole lot of attention, but I don't think I've ever seen a laptop/notebook with a **built-in** webcam. I think I'd be very suspicious of a school system that issued computers with them. No, lots and lots of laptops and netbooks have built-in webcams. There's nothing at all unusual about that aspect of it. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
phartz...@gmail.com escribió: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eric S. Sande esa...@verizon.net wrote: That's about it for now. Good post. I think that the FCC wants industry to get with the various governmental agencies and really get this issue hashed out...finally. I see that President Obama just signed an Executive Order, making it a requirement that the two sides in our federal legislature sit down together to work out a fix for the economy. He finally had to take this draconian, some would say dictatorial step because our Congress critters were essentially refusing to move on the problem, refusing to work with one another. I think the FCC head was trying to say that the time has come for cooperation instead of opposition and to do it for the welfare of our nation. It somehow got done back in the early days of wired telephone service and telcos did not wither and die as a result and we can do it again today with this newer technology that in many ways is supplanting telephone service as being a necessity in the contemporary world. Yes, I agree with both of you, mostly. The economy can't improve enough to be competitive when the world economy improves until we ramp up our communications systems. What we need most is public-private partnerships, and a lot of cooperation instead of behaving like adversaries or worse. Of course, companies need to make a profit to exist. Telcos can't afford to create a national network on their own, plus they need incentives. They also need their networks to survive in the long term. It won't happen without partnerships, but the details need to be worked out in advance, and as the network is developed. The broadband speed must be in line with competing economies, since our competition is global. Do we really want an overpriced 3Mbps national network, when competing nations already have less expensive 20-50Mbps and working on 100Mbps up to 1Gbps? Of course not. That's the kind of lowest common denominator, lowest bid nonsense thinking that gives us bad roads, bridges that don't last, electronics and hard goods that break before warranties expire. Lowest bid is counterproductive. Best bid for best quality [and expansion] we can afford for the future is better. As Steve said, the original telco service and electrification didn't happen only through the goodness of private companies. They needed government assistance, grants, loans, prodding, sometimes with threats, and creation of public projects like REA and TVA, along with plenty of regulation to ensure universal service and prevent gouging. Eric, you know the technical and financial requirements for your network. Extrapolate for a national network. It's too much for the private sector to afford, yet it will make communication significantly better for both businesses and individuals. Public-private is win-win. BTW, I'm a fiscal conservative and socially liberal/progressive. I had to be somewhat fiscally conservative while taking risks to stay in business for a long time. I'm a capitalist and a technocrat too--started my first business when I was a sophomore in college. However, I don't have a problem with paying fair taxes for good services. Broadband is a valuable utility that's well worth our investment. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Cell phone radiated power
For those who are Google-impaired and will no doubt complain: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/cell-phone-exposure-reverses-alzheimers-and-boosts-memory-mice On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:02 AM, John Duncan Yoyo johnduncany...@gmail.comwrote: There was a lengthy (for Popular Science) article on this this month. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:02 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:21 PM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: Oh no! Here we go again. Microwave RF can most certainly damage human cells. If you can defeat the safety switch, stick your hand into a microwave oven and turn it on if you think this is but an urban myth. Of course, cell phones produce such RF at far lower power, but the FCC decided to limit the amount of RF absorption levels in the interest of public safety. Would cell phone providers like to be able to radiate at higher power levels? Probably so, because they could then get by with fewer cell tower sites if for no other reason. However, the FCC, in conjunction with the FDA, determined what was perceived to be a safe level and mandated that it not be exceeded by cell phone handsets. No one here on this list has said, to the best of my knowledge, that cell phone use has been proven to cause any health problems other than by killing and injuring folks when they crash their cars while using one or hurt themselves by falling over or running into things as they walk about talking or playing games on them. There is more than enough danger right there. The facts of the matter are as originally stated. Make you own decisions. If you want aluminum foil, be my guest. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
We, the people, are the government of the United States. Yes, that's the way it is **supposed** to be. But it isn't, really. The federal government does all sorts of extra-constitutional things, and gets away with it. Who is doing anything about it? Fred, The US Constitution gives a lot of leeway for interpretation, starting with the preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty covers much of our investment in science, RD, social programs, elaborated in Article I, Section 8, beginning with: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... The extra-Constitutional things that have led to the huge debt and deficits are off-budget wars, secret funds for secret programs, not the tiny fraction of our budget that goes to infrastructure like broadband and cellular communications. The government investment in infrastructure is an important part of promoting the general welfare--for both people and businesses. Crumbling infrastructure and citizens with poor health and limited means of communication leads to loss of liberty--the antithesis of promoting the general welfare. The common defense depends intrinsically on the health of the people and the infrastructure. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Cell phone radiated power
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM, John DeCarlo johndeca...@gmail.com wrote: For those who are Google-impaired and will no doubt complain: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/cell-phone-exposure-reverses-alzheimers-and-boosts-memory-mice It is funny how so many folks who have dismissed, out of hand, any suggestion that the radiation from a cell phone has any effect upon the brain or other bodily tissues have fully embraced this finding. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Cell phone radiated power
It is funny how so many folks who have dismissed, out of hand, any suggestion that the radiation from a cell phone has any effect upon the brain or other bodily tissues have fully embraced this finding. As Bob Park likes to say, Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in 1905 for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. It seems to me that cell phone-related cancer is what's mostly rejected out of hand. Saying that they can't cause cancer isn't the same thing as saying that they can't have any effects at all. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Cell phone radiated power
Here you go .you should all get this thing .it's gonna cook yer brainz !! http://www.ismashphone.com/2009/01/cellmate-headset-keeps-cell-phone-at-your -ear-if-it-really-exists-that-is.html You are guaranteed to be a veritable yoyo in as little as a week (depending on how much brain you still have before you start) ...now this is a class action lawsuit in the works if I've ever seen one ...is this thing the newest offering from Johns Manville? -Original Message- From: John Duncan Yoyo [mailto:johnduncany...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:03 AM Subject: Re: Cell phone radiated power There was a lengthy (for Popular Science) article on this this month. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:02 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:21 PM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: Oh no! Here we go again. Microwave RF can most certainly damage human cells. If you can defeat the safety switch, stick your hand into a microwave oven and turn it on if you think this is but an urban myth. Of course, cell phones produce such RF at far lower power, but the FCC decided to limit the amount of RF absorption levels in the interest of public safety. Would cell phone providers like to be able to radiate at higher power levels? Probably so, because they could then get by with fewer cell tower sites if for no other reason. However, the FCC, in conjunction with the FDA, determined what was perceived to be a safe level and mandated that it not be exceeded by cell phone handsets. No one here on this list has said, to the best of my knowledge, that cell phone use has been proven to cause any health problems other than by killing and injuring folks when they crash their cars while using one or hurt themselves by falling over or running into things as they walk about talking or playing games on them. There is more than enough danger right there. The facts of the matter are as originally stated. Make you own decisions. If you want aluminum foil, be my guest. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Cell phone radiated power
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Chris Dunford seed...@gmail.com wrote: As Bob Park likes to say, Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in 1905 for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. It seems to me that cell phone-related cancer is what's mostly rejected out of hand. Mostly that is what was said, but countless others said and adhered to the mantra that there was no effect at all. But, to now be seeming to rejoice in the claims of tremendous medical benefits of cell phone radiation seems like grasping at straws to me. I never once ever heard anyone suggest that radiation from phones would eventually be shown to be beneficial. Indeed, this is but one sole study that already has many debunkers. It does, however, appear to compound the evidence that suggests that cell phone emissions of RF are likely to generate changes at the molecular level in brain tissue. I'm kinda happy with my brain as it is, but thanks anyway. The point of my initial post was not to stir up the debate about cancer, but just to point out that smart phones are designed to emit a lot more microwave RF than do regular cell phones. Can anyone explain why that is the case? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Cell phone radiated power
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ together with http://www.cell-mateus.com/aboutcell-mate.html ...let's start an investment fund!! -Original Message- From: John Duncan Yoyo [mailto:johnduncany...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:03 AM Subject: Re: Cell phone radiated power There was a lengthy (for Popular Science) article on this this month. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:02 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:21 PM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: Oh no! Here we go again. Microwave RF can most certainly damage human cells. If you can defeat the safety switch, stick your hand into a microwave oven and turn it on if you think this is but an urban myth. Of course, cell phones produce such RF at far lower power, but the FCC decided to limit the amount of RF absorption levels in the interest of public safety. Would cell phone providers like to be able to radiate at higher power levels? Probably so, because they could then get by with fewer cell tower sites if for no other reason. However, the FCC, in conjunction with the FDA, determined what was perceived to be a safe level and mandated that it not be exceeded by cell phone handsets. No one here on this list has said, to the best of my knowledge, that cell phone use has been proven to cause any health problems other than by killing and injuring folks when they crash their cars while using one or hurt themselves by falling over or running into things as they walk about talking or playing games on them. There is more than enough danger right there. The facts of the matter are as originally stated. Make you own decisions. If you want aluminum foil, be my guest. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain that. NASA and the constitution? What the hell are you thinking? One had nothing to do with the other, thank God. If it did we'd have military in space. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Feb 19, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Chris Dunford wrote: If all these things are unconstitutional then someone would have litigated it a long time ago and the Supreme Court would have declared so. So I do not buy it at all. Right. Every time I hear, Show me where in the Constitution is says we can have X, I think, I'll do that as soon as you show me where it says we can have a National Aeronautics and Space Administration. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
You mean we don't? Stewart At 05:34 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote: I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain that. NASA and the constitution? What the hell are you thinking? One had nothing to do with the other, thank God. If it did we'd have military in space. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
The tenth doesn't give much leeway. We strayed greatly and long ago. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:31 PM, b_s-wilk b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote: We, the people, are the government of the United States. Yes, that's the way it is **supposed** to be. But it isn't, really. The federal government does all sorts of extra-constitutional things, and gets away with it. Who is doing anything about it? Fred, The US Constitution gives a lot of leeway for interpretation, starting with the preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty covers much of our investment in science, RD, social programs, elaborated in Article I, Section 8, beginning with: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... The extra-Constitutional things that have led to the huge debt and deficits are off-budget wars, secret funds for secret programs, not the tiny fraction of our budget that goes to infrastructure like broadband and cellular communications. The government investment in infrastructure is an important part of promoting the general welfare--for both people and businesses. Crumbling infrastructure and citizens with poor health and limited means of communication leads to loss of liberty--the antithesis of promoting the general welfare. The common defense depends intrinsically on the health of the people and the infrastructure. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Creepy or what?
Somebody hasta make the kiddie porn... some schools must have creative financing... -Original Message- From: phartz...@gmail.com [mailto:phartz...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:54 PM Subject: Creepy or what? Parents: school used webcam to spy on our kid at home By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated February 18, 2010 12:23 PM School-issued laptops are becoming more and more common these days, but thanks to the action of one high school, students and parents might have second thoughts about bringing them home. The parents of a Pennsylvania high school student, Blake J. Robbins, have filed a lawsuit against his school district after discovering that school officials had allegedly been remotely accessing the laptop in order to take webcam photos of the students at home. There are a number of unanswered questions about this story, but if true, it could mean serious penalties for the Lower Merion School District. http://tinyurl.com/yfb4ujl * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Cell phone radiated power
...you mean the name should be dumbphones ?? -Original Message- From: phartz...@gmail.com [mailto:phartz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:55 PM Subject: Re: Cell phone radiated power On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Chris Dunford seed...@gmail.com wrote: As Bob Park likes to say, Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in 1905 for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. It seems to me that cell phone-related cancer is what's mostly rejected out of hand. Mostly that is what was said, but countless others said and adhered to the mantra that there was no effect at all. But, to now be seeming to rejoice in the claims of tremendous medical benefits of cell phone radiation seems like grasping at straws to me. I never once ever heard anyone suggest that radiation from phones would eventually be shown to be beneficial. Indeed, this is but one sole study that already has many debunkers. It does, however, appear to compound the evidence that suggests that cell phone emissions of RF are likely to generate changes at the molecular level in brain tissue. I'm kinda happy with my brain as it is, but thanks anyway. The point of my initial post was not to stir up the debate about cancer, but just to point out that smart phones are designed to emit a lot more microwave RF than do regular cell phones. Can anyone explain why that is the case? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
Not unless you know something the rest of us don't. I need to concede that we have satellites that monitor stuff. But Star Wars? No. And what does NASA and the constitution have to do with each other? Or did I forget that McDonalds and the constitution thing? Ok, McDonalds is a corp. and NASA is government financed. So what's the USFS and the constitution have to do with each other? Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Feb 19, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: You mean we don't? Stewart At 05:34 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote: I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain that. NASA and the constitution? What the hell are you thinking? One had nothing to do with the other, thank God. If it did we'd have military in space. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Just what is a computer anyway?
So is the innovator the one who came up with 'app phones' or the one who popularized them? On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:53 PM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Feb 17, 2010, at 7:22 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Both of my co-workers most decidedly use their cell phones more often for texting, playing games or for taking and showing photos, etc., than they do for making or receiving phone calls. I had taken note of that over time at work, asked them about it, and they agreed with me. That's right. Most of us (except for the Rev.) are carrying around a completely different device than the cell phones of old. The smart phone you just described gets us halfway there. Today's app phones (iPhone and copies) change the way we interact with our environment. That is a revolutionary change. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
In the early years. All the astronauts were active duty military folks. NASA and the Military have been closely linked. Not a bad thing. Now do not get me wrong I do not see anything wrong with NASA being intimately linked with our military I do not consider military a bad thing. (I better not, one brother retired LTC, I am an Honorably discharged Vet, and my youngest is a PV1 (SPC soon) and my son-in-law an AFC.) Stewart At 08:22 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote: Not unless you know something the rest of us don't. I need to concede that we have satellites that monitor stuff. But Star Wars? No. And what does NASA and the constitution have to do with each other? Or did I forget that McDonalds and the constitution thing? Ok, McDonalds is a corp. and NASA is government financed. So what's the USFS and the constitution have to do with each other? Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 On Feb 19, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: You mean we don't? Stewart At 05:34 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote: I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain that. NASA and the constitution? What the hell are you thinking? One had nothing to do with the other, thank God. If it did we'd have military in space. Jeff Miles jmile...@charter.net Join my Mafia http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FCC head calls for broadband availability
Extrapolate for a national network. OK, for a FiOS level network that can be leveraged as technology improves with a 15-20 year time horizon, probably at least $300B. Based on our best projections we're going to spend at least $35B in our footprint, which is basically now the East coast corridor and parts of TX, CA, and FL. We also figure that going for a Mercedes-level system would pay off in the long term. Our competitors are going to face similar costs, but they chose to go with lesser technologies. One problem is take rate vs pass rate (pass rate is how many subscibers have it available, take rate is how many of those actually buy the product). The take/pass ratio is critical. You want it to be 100%, but experience shows that it isn't. The report previously cited bears that out. To put it in Tom terms, there are a boatload of people who can buy iPhones but who don't for various reasons. Mainly cost considerations. My challenge is to make the product so appealing to the passed that they will become takes. And tilt the ratio toward eventual profitability. That part isn't exactly my department, but that's the general strategy. My optical network is a high-end state of the art product. If you are happy with hamburger, why would you buy filet mignon, if you were lucky to get the hamburger? But if I can give you filet mignon at only slightly more than hamburger prices, you'd be more likely to buy it. Obviously I never took a marketing course. I didn't take an analogy course either, clearly. What seems desirable to technocrats, on a purely theoretical level, isn't immediately obvious to the politicians or their constituencies. I have some connections out in the heartland. They are all ready stretched financially and pissed off at the government. And Wall Street in general. And people have also always hated The Phone Company. So I'm number three on the hit list of a LOT of people. A few posts ago you attributed erosion of liberty with the actions of unregulated corporations. May be that's true. But I'm the most regulated corporation in American history, with the possible exception of liquor companies. The have even been MOVIES that presented me as the villian. The only worse fate would have been to be an Arab-American after 9/11. So it's an uphill fight to do what's best. What do you do if you build a baseball field and they DON'T come? From my POV you build it anyway. It's the sensible thing to do. It's the capitalist thing to do. Corporations live quarter to quarter, capitalists invest for the future. I never expected a dime from the government, anyway. The elected members turn over faster than pancakes in an IHOP, they can't work together effectively, and that is good and built into our system of government. It delays tyranny, which was the intent. Anyway, I have my problems and everyone else has theirs. Sorry to take up your time if you bothered to read this far. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
