You'll also see that there are at least a few other videos of
the same experiment, with the same result.
I wasn't able to find any explanation for this on line,
although I didn't check for long.
On the face of it, this seems to add weight to the idea that
cell phones are potentially hazardous to health, but I have never
found those arguments convincing.
On 03 Jun 2008 18:07:27 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:ej0b4495hrev7kdnlkp6105hng4ilui2sj@4ax.com David G. Imber
><imber@maniform.com> wrote:
>
>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
>> pop popcorn:
>
>No, you won't.
You get an A for concision, but not such a high grade for
thoroughness.
Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if
you'd be so kind.
In news:623b44h3fbbcu4flg88sk24lemni7t86km@4ax.com David G. Imber
<imber@maniform.com> wrote:
> On 03 Jun 2008 18:07:27 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:ej0b4495hrev7kdnlkp6105hng4ilui2sj@4ax.com David G. Imber
>><imber@maniform.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
>>> pop popcorn:
>>
>>No, you won't.
>
> You get an A for concision, but not such a high grade for
> thoroughness.
>
> Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if
> you'd be so kind.
On 2008-06-03, David G Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote:
> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
> pop popcorn:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18
>
> You'll also see that there are at least a few other videos of
> the same experiment, with the same result.
What I'd like to know is what the grey and white thing with the
red power button is. It appears in both videos, and I've got a
feeling you are going to have some difficulty reproducing this
experiment if you haven't got one yourself.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:42:09 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>What I'd like to know is what the grey and white thing with the
>red power button is. It appears in both videos, and I've got a
>feeling you are going to have some difficulty reproducing this
>experiment if you haven't got one yourself.
I don't see such a thing in the video you posted. Where is it?
In news:tc9b44lk7auokhka1a13gk498j268om1df@4ax.com David G. Imber
<imber@maniform.com> wrote:
> On 03 Jun 2008 18:34:59 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if
>>> you'd be so kind.
>>
>>What you're seeing is a joke.
>
> That is an explanation of a certain sort. Sorry to trouble
> you, you obviously don't know the answer.
On 03 Jun 2008 20:59:33 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:tc9b44lk7auokhka1a13gk498j268om1df@4ax.com David G. Imber
><imber@maniform.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03 Jun 2008 18:34:59 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if
>>>> you'd be so kind.
>>>
>>>What you're seeing is a joke.
>>
>> That is an explanation of a certain sort. Sorry to trouble
>> you, you obviously don't know the answer.
>
>Good luck.
Thanks, Minnesota.Obviously I'm assuming it's a hoax, and the
answer is probably right out there and I'm blindly missing it. But
there are several instances of this on the Web, and in most cases
there are people responding "it's a hoax", as you did, but offering no
explanation. I will believe that it's a hoax when there is evidence
from which to draw that conclusion. I cannot see any. Skepticism works
in all directions.
On 2008-06-03, David G Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:42:09 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>What I'd like to know is what the grey and white thing with the
>>red power button is. It appears in both videos, and I've got a
>>feeling you are going to have some difficulty reproducing this
>>experiment if you haven't got one yourself.
>
> I don't see such a thing in the video you posted. Where is it?
In my video it is the "phone" that the woman puts on the table. In
your video it is the "phone" on the lower left when the camera is
focused on the popcorn.
Whatever that is, the same device is used in both videos and it
really doesn't look much like a phone.
David G. Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote in
news:ej0b4495hrev7kdnlkp6105hng4ilui2sj@4ax.com:
> On the face of it, this seems to add weight to the idea that
> cell phones are potentially hazardous to health, but I have never
> found those arguments convincing.
>
>
What's really hilarious is to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVsH88jVNmU
100,000 watts of high microwave energy directed to you and it's 100%
safe.....
The age of passive resistance and legal protest is OVER!
On 03 Jun 2008 21:33:23 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:a7cb445escqetqud8qol977tiv0v0sdu8n@4ax.com David G. Imber
><imber@maniform.com> wrote:
>
>> I will believe that it's a hoax when there is evidence
>> from which to draw that conclusion.
>
>Rather than believing any magic trick they're shown, most people take a
>different approach and assume it's a trick until offered proof that it's
>real.
You're not getting me, which is why I was arguing with your
initial responses (respectfully). I ASSUMED it was a trick. I'm the
most reason-based person you'll meet. But tricks have solutions. I
haven't seen one from you or anyone else. Therefore I can't call it a
trick until I see evidence of how it came to be. Right now I have a
video which, on the surface, gives me nothing (or at least I can spot
nothing) like evidence. I'm left with an assumption that it's a trick,
but an assumption with no inherent truth value.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:26:11 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Whatever that is, the same device is used in both videos and it
>really doesn't look much like a phone.
Nah, that's a phone. I mean, what else would it be? It would
only be a functional part of the trick if it were a directional
microwave transmitter, but it's surely not.
I'll tell you something else about my video, before anyone
brings it up. The table the participants are sitting at is called a
"kotatsu" and it does indeed have a heating element beneath it. But
that element is at the center of the table, and the surface of the
table doesn't become even warm. It's a common furnishing in Japanese
apartments.
In news:17nb445udccsklaiolgipqtldc5esu0rfs@4ax.com David G. Imber
<imber@maniform.com> wrote:
> Right now I have a video which, on the surface, gives me nothing (or
> at least I can spot nothing) like evidence.
How do you expect to find "evidence" in a low-resolution video that
shows you only what the maker wants you to see?
> I'm left with an assumption that it's a trick, but an assumption with
> no inherent truth value.
How much water is in a kernel of corn? How much energy is required to
raise that quantity of water from room temperature to boiling in the
period of time shown? How much energy can you get out of 4 conventional
cell phones? How much of that energy can you transfer from those cell
phones into a kernel of corn in the period of time shown in the physical
configuation shown?
On 04 Jun 2008 14:06:00 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:17nb445udccsklaiolgipqtldc5esu0rfs@4ax.com David G. Imber
><imber@maniform.com> wrote:
>
>> Right now I have a video which, on the surface, gives me nothing (or
>> at least I can spot nothing) like evidence.
>
>How do you expect to find "evidence" in a low-resolution video that
>shows you only what the maker wants you to see?
I do not. That is what prompted my request for an explanation.
Unfortunately, no one has offered any.
>> I'm left with an assumption that it's a trick, but an assumption with
>> no inherent truth value.
>
>How much water is in a kernel of corn? How much energy is required to
>raise that quantity of water from room temperature to boiling in the
>period of time shown? How much energy can you get out of 4 conventional
>cell phones? How much of that energy
[snip]
I am under no illusion that you can pop corn with a cell
phone. Nor do I believe that Mr. Mentalist can bend spoons w/his
brain. But when I see them bend I simply want to know how it's done.
That story is generally far more interesting and amusing than "magic".
I have not yet heard such a story in this case, nor any story that
makes sense. "It's a hoax" does nothing for me.
In news:1cmd44h7edr5sactlcuo6ndmdjmaraji12@4ax.com David G. Imber
<imber@maniform.com> wrote:
> I am under no illusion that you can pop corn with a cell
> phone. Nor do I believe that Mr. Mentalist can bend spoons w/his
> brain. But when I see them bend I simply want to know how it's done.
> That story is generally far more interesting and amusing than "magic".
> I have not yet heard such a story in this case, nor any story that
> makes sense. "It's a hoax" does nothing for me.
As I sad before, when the only "evidence" you're given is a
low-resolution video produced in an environment entirely under the
control of the hoaxer, there's nothing else to say.
If you want more, the only place you're going to get it is from the
producers of the joke video.
Why does my Samsung Sprint phone drop from an excellent signal to dropped
call to Digital Roam and back -- all within, say 15 seconds while sitting on
my desk at home in "Speaker" mode without anyone touching it or moving in
the same room?
Is this a phenomena unique to Sprint?
I've called their support and the answer is "You shouldn't have that
probelm" but no expanation.
I'm in Brooklyn, NY.
I also notice Digital Roam popping up in midtown Manhattan (38th and
Broadway, for example), crossing the Manhattan Bridge on the Subway and
other unexpected places.
Is the coverage that bad?
If so, anyone have any suggestions as to a more reliable carrier within New
York City?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:17:45 -0400, "J.R.Guthrie"
<jguthrie1@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Why does my Samsung Sprint phone drop from an excellent signal to dropped
>call to Digital Roam and back -- all within, say 15 seconds while sitting on
>my desk at home in "Speaker" mode without anyone touching it or moving in
>the same room?
>
>Is this a phenomena unique to Sprint?
Trust me on this, I had a four month ordeal in which I had
plenty of opportunity to study what was going on. I asked folks here
for help, and although no one could provide any answers, they
thankfully led me in the right direction.
Here's the very abbreviated story:
I cannot guarantee with certainty that your case is exactly
the same as mine, but you can check. Go into your phone's menu to the
advanced settings. You'll see the SID, Channel, and frequency
settings. Your channel setting should be (probably) 625 or 650.
Possibly 600, but whatever it is, it should NOT CHANGE when the phone
is idle. If you see that it is switching erratically, try to get as
high on the tech ladder as you can and explain this (that your phone's
channel is fluctuating on its own when you're not talking on it). They
can fix this at the back end.
I hope that this helps you localize the problem, and I hope
that you can get to someone willing to take responsibility for helping
you. The fix is nothing, but getting someone to agree to affect it
required four months of nearly hour-long conversations every business
day and one Saturday. I won't bore you with the details or how many
useless, foolish things they did rather than actually fix the problem.
The good news is that I pay relatively little for phone
service now.
> David G. Imber wrote:
>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
>> pop popcorn:
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18
>
> It was all a hoax, according to a CNN story.
Yeah, I was under no illusions whatsoever when I posted my
question asking how it was done. And you'll notice that even in the
article above and the one it references in Wired, there's no
explanation. But this puts the important part of the puzzle in place.
When I originally asked what was happening here people just
answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
farce.
The incentive was the company's increased recognition and
presumed profit as a result. At last there appears something
resembling a "reason" for what's seen in those videos (for those who
seemed to have trouble with the definition of that word).
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:33:27 -0400, Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>DTC wrote:
>>
>>> David G. Imber wrote:
>>>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
>>>> pop popcorn:
>>>>
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18
>>>
>>> It was all a hoax, according to a CNN story.
>>
>>Yep...
>>
>>http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008...oth-compa.html
>
> Yeah, I was under no illusions whatsoever when I posted my
> question asking how it was done. And you'll notice that even in the
> article above and the one it references in Wired, there's no
> explanation. But this puts the important part of the puzzle in place.
>
> When I originally asked what was happening here people just
> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
> reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
> actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
> experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
> costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
> incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
> farce.
Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic"
becomes a reasonable assumption. :-)
> The incentive was the company's increased recognition and
> presumed profit as a result. At last there appears something
> resembling a "reason" for what's seen in those videos (for those who
> seemed to have trouble with the definition of that word).
Yep, while I don't approve of their "scare tactic" methodology, I can
understand their motive...
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:37:16 -0400, "J.R.Guthrie"
<jguthrie1@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Thanks! I'll watch for that. I'm on 650 at the moment . . . I'll keep an
>eye on it.
>
>> The good news is that I pay relatively little for phone
>> service now.
>
>And still with Sprint ?? <g>
Yes. You see, I've been with them for nine years, and I had
never before and have never since had a bit of trouble with the
service. I travel around the country for my work and I've never been
disappointed with that aspect of Sprint's operation.
This was my wife's phone, and it went haywire right after the
Sprint-Nextel merger (that's relevant, actually, but I promised I
wouldn't bore you with the copious details). I fought so hard and so
long to make it right because I knew that when the phone was working,
the service was sterling.
As a result of my incredible inconvenience they gave me a
significant rate discount, and that made it harder to abandon them.
My contract is up now, and since there will probably be lots
of changes in the cellular field this year, I may not stay with
Sprint. I'm extremely tired of having to deal with them, even if it's
only about once every two years.
It's true that once you get your service set up and working
the way you want it, it just hums along in most cases without any
further trouble. But if you must deal with customer service you can be
about 100% sure something will go wrong. I recently made an inquiry
about my bill and sure enough, the next month the figures were screwed
up. After just an INQUIRY ABOUT BILLING! Their customer service is
totally hopeless, and I'm just tired of it.
What I went through to get my wife's phone fixed, when I was
able to give them incontrovertible proof that the fault was on their
side and fixable from the main office, was just beyond the pale. But
as I say, when it was fixed, it worked like a hammer, as it always had
before, and now it was cheaper.
That's why (the only reason why) I'm still with Sprint.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:36:53 -0400, Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net>
wrote:
>>
>> When I originally asked what was happening here people just
>> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
>> reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
>> actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
>> experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
>> costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
>> incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
>> farce.
>
>Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic"
>becomes a reasonable assumption. :-)
Well, not exactly. I assumed a hoax from the first, but "movie
magic" costs $$$. All other possibilities, such as a camouflaged
heating surface, etc., were just too difficult a stretch.
What seems reasonable is that someone (a corporation) was
willing to spend the money for a mildly sophisticated video effect
because they believed _they would get it back_. The promise of profit
makes the assumption reasonable.
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:36:53 -0400, Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> When I originally asked what was happening here people just
>>> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
>>> reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
>>> actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
>>> experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
>>> costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
>>> incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
>>> farce.
>>
>>Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic"
>>becomes a reasonable assumption. :-)
>
> Well, not exactly. I assumed a hoax from the first, but "movie
> magic" costs $$$. All other possibilities, such as a camouflaged
> heating surface, etc., were just too difficult a stretch.
With today's methods, CGI just as likely as video editing, so I simply
lumped it all as "movie magic". The exact method is irrelevant.
> What seems reasonable is that someone (a corporation) was
> willing to spend the money for a mildly sophisticated video effect
> because they believed _they would get it back_. The promise of profit
> makes the assumption reasonable.
Of course there was a profit motive...
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
On Jun 3, 12:45*pm, David G. Imber <im...@maniform.com> wrote:
> * * * * In this video you will see people using their cell phones to
> pop popcorn:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18
>
> * * * * You'll also see that there are at least a few other videosof
> the same experiment, with the same result.
>
> * * * * I wasn't able to find any explanation for this on line,
> although I didn't check for long.
>
> * * * * On the face of it, this seems to add weight to the idea that
> cell phones are potentially hazardous to health, but I have never
> found those arguments convincing.
>
> * * * * Anyone? DGI
Its the method that the number of social security recipients will be
trimmed...keep using those free weekend minutes munchkins...JG
What is happening here? 
Linear Mode
