Linked by David Adams on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 16:36 UTC, submitted by Amy Bennett
Windows As of today, Microsoft won't allow manufacturers to install XP on new netbooks," says blogger Kevin Fogarty. "That doesn't mean corporate customers who special-order hardware with XP won't be able to get it, or even that its market share ( 60 percent!) will drop any time soon.... It just means XP has taken the first babystep toward obsolescence and the long (really long, considering its market share) slide down toward the pit of minor operating systems like the MacOS X (4.39 percent) , Java ME (.95 percent) and "Other" (which I think is an alternative spelling for "Linux" (.85 percent).
Permalink for comment 446732
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Maybe an overdue step
by Neolander on Sat 23rd Oct 2010 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Maybe an overdue step"
Member since:

The transmitters on cell phones are far, far to weak to affect soft tissues.

Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. They are not powerful enough to remove electrons from atoms. This means that they do not change the structure of molecules. All they can do is add a little bit of heat, which is quickly removed by blood circulation.

Ultraviolet rays are not ionizing either, theoretically speaking, and still they are proven to cause skin cancer. Physically, I suppose it works by breaking molecules, which have lower binding energies that the ones involved in atoms.

Or, if "ionizing" is defined by getting an electron from the ground state to outside of the atom, the problem may be that a powerful flux of low-energy photons could make electrons successively jump in states of higher and higher energy. Need a precise definition of the term.

There is no science that supports the idea that cell phones are at all dangerous (unless you're on the phone while driving, but then, you deserve to crash in to a pole), only ignorance of science and fear or new technologies, which is far more damaging to a child's mind.

Until recently, there was no trustworthy analysis of cellphone dangerosity either, if you go this way (all of those had a phone carrier or manufacturer in their sources of funding). This statu quo has been lasting for some time.
On the other hand, recently, some Israeli researchers seem to have found some statistical evidence :

Could not find the article I originally read about that, which was more detailed, but if I remember well the exposure times involved were rather heavy (45min calling/day). On the other hand, since childs' skulls are a less efficient barrier against electromagnetic waves (seen that on news brodcast, but I suppose finding a source wouldn't be too hard), they are more vulnerable, so the dangerosity level for them is unknown.

Edited 2010-10-23 10:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2