Their description of the problem, suggested solution to the problem, and claim that this is the same issue that occurs with other phones contradict themselves. Bumpers do not change where you hold your phone; you are still covering the same area with your hand.

I'm not by any means an engineer in the relevant field but I do understand simple logic. The only reason a bumper could possibly fix the problem with all other things being left unchanged is because this is an issue of where your skin makes contact with the antenna.

I don't understand how anyone can suggest a case will fix the problem while at the same time try and pass it off as if the problem is caused by you covering up the antenna. With a bumper you're adding more layers. If anything it should stay the same or get worse - not better.

I'd surmise the reason they are specifying a particular laptop is that they are planning for the possibility of having to offer at least limited support. This way, they don't have to worry about the myriad hardware configurations they would deal with if they simply required something that's a laptop.

So far as why it was Apple and not Microsoft, what difference does that make? If they were all Dells we wouldn't be having this discussion. Not because Dells are objectively all around better than MacBooks, just because going with Windows is subjectively considered standard and anything else weird or not worth of "real" use. From my experience as a user of Apple products, the MacBooks will be fine for anything they'll likely have to do for school.

So far as real world preparation, the real world operates on a number of different systems. Contrary to popular myths, many businesses don't run on Microsoft alone. Exposing kids to one of the larger alternatives is hardly a bad thing. Especially considering that if they really want to, they can always run windows on their Mac.

I don't understand why so many people make these analogies between networks and fuel/electricity/etc. AT&T isn't providing the data, they're providing the conduit you use to get it. I'll use the same example I used on the AT&T forums:

Two people pump x amount of gas each from a fuel pump at the same time. The hose is split so that they can do this simultaneously. This goes relatively quickly.
One hundred people pump x amount of gas each from a second fuel pump at the same time. Again, the hose is split so they can all do this at the same time. This takes considerably longer.

For those who think charging according to how much data you use is only fair, remember - all people mentioned above will end up being charged the exact same amount of money. In this case, they're paying the supplier for the hose based off how much they pump through it. This, IMO, is a much better analogy for what the carriers are doing.

I've always thought his article on this topic skipped over dealing with the fact that rarely, if ever, is code so perfect that it wasn't at least a little 'rusty' in the first place. There's only so far you can go with refactoring before it would just be more efficient to start from scratch.

Ah, but are they also telling you what language you absolutely must use to hit the .net framework?

I haven't heard Toyota calling for developers to come develop for their platform, nor have I seen them using developers to create the usefulness that justify the price a Prius commands. A Prius is worth its price out of the box. IMO, the iPhone and the iPad would be worth much less than they are if not for 3rd party developers. Apple quite often uses the work of these 3rd party developers as bullet points to why you should purchase one of their devices. Without them, you've just purchased an $800 combination Movie/Music player and internet browser.

The word "entitlement" is thrown around as a negative, but in this case - perhaps yes - developers are entitled some amount of consideration from Apple. Note - I said consideration. Thus far, it's only been Apple's way or the highway.

Given the number of people that use cell phones, if they do cause cancer often enough for it to be declared a problem I don't think we'll need a study to show it. I for one will continue to use my phone confident in the fact that it's still a net gain between the ways science artificially increases my otherwise natural lifespan versus the stupid decisions I tend to make that would act to decrease it. (not really referring to cell phone use there. more like that time I played the snowboarding video game and thought "psh, how hard can that be in real life. do you SEE that score?!")

I'm certainly not an expert at any of the respective areas of science this involves, but does anyone know if we could re-oxygenate the water even on a temporary basis? Jokes about bubbling skeleton pirate treasure chests aside, would it be possible to run tubing down to the floor of the affected areas and pump air in? I realize we're talking about a large area and this wouldn't be a small task but would that at least temporarily solve this particular part of the problem?

Isn't the issue of the respective companies keeping their IP handled by the fact that we're talking about official standards and not DeFacto ones? No one would have their IP ripped from their hands, they just couldn't reap the benefits of calling themselves an ISO standard in exchange for nothing. It seems to me that the whole point of having a standard is negated when it's at the mercy of an entity whose best interests are the monetization of it above other concerns.