No, millimeter waves are at least 10 to 100 times shorter in wavelength than the other items you mentioned.

Millimeter waves, by definition, have a wavelength between 1mm and 10mm. A microwave oven, wireless router, or cell phone all have a wavelength of around 125mm or longer. So the energy in each photon of millimeter wave radiation is 10 to 100 times greater than the energy in each photon from a wireless router.

It is possible, therefore, that it could be sufficient to trigger adverse effects in living cells. And it is just common sense and basic respect for human rights and dignity to investigate the long term health effects of repeated exposure to millimeter waves, before irradiating hundreds of millions of innocent people every year.

That's amazing that you are able to encode, do motion detection, and write to disk, 25fps * 8 channels = 200fps in real time on a low power Atom based system! I would never have imagined that the Atom could do that.

I would appreciate it if you would post the details of the motherboard, encoding card, and storage system that you're using to achieve these results.

Regardless of one's views on supernatural experiences, religion, or life after death, the arguments presented in the linked article must be rejected, because they are illogical, and very embarrasingly so for their authors, and also for their publishers.

In essence, they argue from the premise that the mere fact that a perception of having an experience can be triggered by an artificial stimulus to the brain, implies that the experience itself is never caused by anything in objective reality, and is entirely a product of subjective internal biochemical processes. But that conclusion doesn't follow logically, at all.

For example, we know that visual hallucinations can be triggered by artificial stimuli, but from that observation, it does not follow that light does not exist, and that those of us who claim to see things, such as this text on the screen, must be imagining it.

We also know from experiments conducted by electrically stimulating the brains of patients undergoing brain surgery, that vivid memories of childhood experiences can be evoked, having such clarity and vividness that they seem to the patient as if they were happening right then and there on the operating table, at the time of the experiment. But from these observations it does not follow that those experiences never really took place at all, or that the persons claiming to have had those childhood experiences were merely hallucinating when they were four years old, and thought that they were playing with their father.

just like most people hadn't owned a smart phone before getting the iPhone.

Hahahahahaha! No wait, that wasn't a joke - you seriously believe that, don't you?

Most people don't own an Iphone full stop. Nokia have 40% share - and Apple have not very much. Perhaps it was the first smart phone for most Iphone users, but that tells us little - it may well be true that most Nokia owners got a Nokia as their first smart phone, and same for all other makes.

But "revolutionary to most Iphone users" isn't "revolutionary to most people". Since the Iphone has less than 5% market share, this is clearly true. At least, it would be if you relied on market facts, rather than making it up as you go along.

And can you give me a definition of smart phone that included the original Iphone, but doesn't include most feature phones? Thought not.

You seriously base your logic on "Most people haven't owned a tablet PC, therefore the Ipad will be revolutionary"? That's absurd logic. The same reasoning would apply to any non-Apple tablet too. Sorry, you don't get to be revolutionary when you're not first. The popularity argument is dubious anyway (was Windows and IE revolutionary, because it was most people's first experience?), but it's laughable to claim it to a vaporware product that isn't even released, and isn't remotely near being something that most people use.