Cliff Leong writes: > it's funny, but i've worn my wearable to the xray machine, took it off and put > it on the conveyor belt with no response from the xray machine operator. other xRays of reasonable intensity don't erase data, magnetic fields do erase data. Modern high-coercevity materials are real difficult to erase. You need a strong field and/or alternating field to kill your hard drive. An xRay source doesn't require a strong current (and they do use image amplifiers these days, as the photo films do survive the exposure), and hence doesn't generate a field of any noticeable strength. If it's bad for your DNA it doesn't mean it's bad for your magnetic bits. (But this doesn't give you mandate to use refrigerator magnets on your floppies). What you might notice, is that the bit flips in memory will increase under xRay irradiation. Transiently, as long as the source is on and your computer is on. So don't go through the xRay tunnel in person with your wearable on. Your system and your gonads will thank you. > times, they'll ignore the wearable and question me about the palm pilot (my > pilot has a nifty kodak digital camera attached.) once, i packed two wearables Apparently they don't recognize it as something digital. But from a HF emission viewpoint a wearable is a nightmare, especially if it's hacked and has not been in the HF measurement lab (a supposedly minor modification can have a major impact in regards to EM emission). Lots of unshielded wires with hard edge pulses travelling on them can radiate lots of power, and the plane body acts as a waveguide, with the field strength focused on cockpit hardware. Ouch. Modern stuff is mostly hardened against this, but how do you know your flight is immune, and there are still surprises possible. This will get worse as higher clock chips and macroscopic wire geometries will start appearing in wearables (uh-oh). I think it's a good idea not to operate your wearable during flight, especially critical portions of the flight. > and they needed to check both of them out (what a a hassle). just recently, i > was on the plane > before takeoff and the stewardesses were suspicious when they saw me sitting > quietly with big sunglasses (covert m1) and a big hippack attached to me with > wires hanging out, just twiddling away checking my email. they had the > copilot investigate me. This list is fun. I wish I was a witness to this particular scene ;) > now that i've been wearing the sunglasses a while, i've come to some > conclusions. when the display is obvious and they can see your eyes, like > with the hacked glasstron or original m1, people are curious. when i'm hiding > behind the sunglasses and they can't see what i'm looking at, they are > suspicious as well as curious. greg priest dorman and i were talking about > this yesterday and he hit the nail on the head: there's a certain > anti-covertness about being covert. Sociology of gargoyles. I hope somebody is taking notes. -- Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" toWear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org please, Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/false domain
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail