As soon as the tech for cameras to take 'x-ray' images is available to appear in phones, manufacturers will be scrambling over each other to get it in.
It will be marketed for everything aside for the x-ray imaging, and that ability will not be implemented, so they'll be 'OK'.
Hackers will immediately make the functionality available to the public, the cat will be out of the bag, and it'll just become another fact of the world, that you can't presume to hide your physical form if you go out in public (although a market will open for special material clothing in order to do so if you can afford it - perhaps even become the solution) or perhaps the world will in a generation or two get accustomed to the new norm and stop caring - the 'european' attitude will become the norm.

I hope it happens in my lifetime, will be terribly entertaining to watch it unfold.

Also curious as to that patent and how it bounces around.

I fully expect one of the first uses would to have a database of common toxins and their signatures, and would indeed be able to detect a sufficient sample, the real question will be sensitivity, which may limit the number that can be usefully detected until the technology is inevitably improved. And once this is in the hands of the public and accessible to develop this is the sort of thing that I expect to make some quick initial advances as others build better databases once there's a need for them, and work out better algorithms of detection and data processing for ever more accurate results...

I might take the time to further investigate a mushroom if my phone said it was safe, and to ignore a mushroom if my phone says it is unsafe, all depending on how accurate I found my phone to be. Only a fool would trust a tool further than it's proven reliability.

My guess is it won't be long after this tech is made available to the public that some hackers will write a filter to give us the x-ray goggles I read about it the back of old comic books, for real...

(Note: I mean hackers in the oldschool use of the term)

I'm not a light expert by any stretch, but from what I understand there are wavelengths of light that the human eye cannot see (but potentially these new cameras could; they already see infrared) that can penetrate substances that human-visible light cannot.

This will then bring up a whole new slew of privacy issues.... and clothing marketing opportunities :)

I see what you're trying to say here, but just to point out:
"From 3ft away ... perhaps 8k would be better"
If you increase the distance from the display, the resolution requirement lowers, not raises, so if 4k is good on 19" at 2ft, then perhaps roughly 2/3 of that resolution would match the capabilities of the same eyes at 3ft. i.e. less, not more. If the display size increased, however, not the distance, or if the distance shortened, then yes, larger resolution would be required to maintain viewing quality.

PPI is the key relevant term for viewing quality (along with refresh rate, colour depth, contrast ratio, oh, and size, etc). With a PPI value, anyone can figure out if it will benefit them at their viewing distance, and based on that viewing distance, what resolution is their 'sweet spot'. The resolution value without the PPI is meaningless.

Resolution is relevant for application developers and video hardware makers, and PPI far less so to them, and there are a fair few developers on /.
Most of the discussion here seems to be from the consumer position, however, so for that, PPI is key.

Yeah, we rarely say 'phone', we're Aussies, don't use more words (or syllables) than required to be understood (or partly understood, if not talking to another Aussie).
I personally do often call it a 'mobile phone' as a compromise when speaking to my American friends, however.
(I lived a while in the USA, and I think between work and friends, I talk to Americans more than Aussies, most days)

I'd mod you up for interesting, but already posted.
I do think it's still entirely possible for some other factor like this to be relevant, well worth considering, or at least keeping in mind.
I feel like there's truth to both.

Turns out they found that the browser that happened to be used while doing the assessment (might not even have been the applicant's own computer...) actually does have enough value in it to show a 15% variance.

No doubt, if they managed to instead get accurate numbers that removed inaccuracies and noise and narrowed down on a more accurate reading, I expect the variance would be more than that 15%.

Of course, it could also be less, don't know for sure till you figure that superior study out, but for the data at hand, they're able to find some interesting correlation.

I definitely do think there's room for improvement, and, based on this study, reason to be hopeful to find more valuable information in further studies.

Even basic results aren't automatically garbage, however, but it probably takes a scientific mind to see it that way.

For the sake of argument, in Australia we (mostly - in Sydney area) still call them mobile phones. But we have American TV, so we understand 'cell phone' also, and many other americanisms, and stuff from other languages.
On the other hand, I do not see what the intent was pointing out that cell phone is am American term. Either way, it was understood, right? There's lots of words for, say, 'sex' too, that often vary by locale, however most people seem to relish knowing as many alternatives to that term as they can, rather than insisting their local name is the only correct one. (Aussies locally claim 'root' as our slang term, among others)
I guess as an Aussie who has travelled the world a fair amount, and speaks a smattering of other languages (none very well, mind you) I recognise that the 'English' we speak here in Australia has so many words and terms from so many other languages that it's idiotic to argue which word label is best, and to ignore languages idiosyncrasies except when directly discussing language itself.
Sure, if you don't understand the word/term used, ask a question, but if you do understand, what is the gain in patronising the other uselessly, and possibly (depending on perspective) inaccurately?
When I lived in the USA, I occasionally called them 'mobiles' but the consistent blank looks from the Americans I was talking to taught me to call them 'cells' while I was there, even though I had to pause every time I used the word in a sentence, as it was always 'mobile' in my head.

But nice to see a discussion about eye colour turn into a "My english is better than your english" competition :)

This.
Best description I've heard of the industry in a while.


And to the other replier AmiMoJo saying that young children don't know what cost/benefit is.... They might not yet label it as such, but let me assure you, from the day anyone starts making their own decisions on things, which starts very early, you learn from every decision about the reality of cost/benefit, even if not called that, and kids happen to be pretty good learners in general. You can bet they are all about getting the most benefit for their cost, even if they're not the best at evaluating the bigger picture. (Plenty of adults who are bad at cost/benefit also, but everyone is always considering it, even if not labelling it as such.)

I think there's been a lot of saying it has to be 50-50 and not much seems to care about what the kids themselves want, just about showing the numbers.
Also, just cause we now have larger ratio of female gamers doesn't necessarily correlate with female developers.
I think (though ignore this if you like, not providing any references) that it's games like "Stardom Hollywood" and "Candy Crush Saga", "Farmville", "Hay Day", etc, that are bringing in a larger 'female gamer' population. The so-called "hardcore gamer" population is still predominantly male, which I mention as it's usually the so-called "hardcores" that tend to step over to the actual development.
I do agree that it should be as simple as "Make programming available to kids that want to study it" and "Ensure they get a good solid introduction to it so they can decide for themselves", but don't force them to continue/discontinue just to make your numbers look good.

Ran out of mod points, but I'd give this an insightful flag, as while the impact might not be measured exactly, I think there's definitely truth in that, and ignoring it would be counterproductive.

Perhaps I'm having trouble recognising a serious problem when faced with one, but with the current state of wages being: Hollywood Reporter Wages Article I'm not seeing what this piracy problem is all about.
I don't see anyone in Hollywood making minimum wage or less..... especially not losing money because of piracy... Something as simple as a bad poster design is going to be worse for their profits than all those nasty pirates...
Meanwhile, seems everyone who is complaining about how bad piracy is is making a minimum wage with a few zeros (or more) appended to it, and is bitterly disappointed that they aren't making just a few percent more. The industry is positively thriving. Hard to care.