jhu
Oct 29, 08:28 PM
You have no idea what "free" means, do you? Free software has absolutely nothing to do with the money you pay to obtain it. Commercial software that you would pay thousands of dollars for can be a perfectly good example of "free" software.
huh??
it's freedom of speech versus free beer. it all depends on the license the authors used for the code though.
huh??
it's freedom of speech versus free beer. it all depends on the license the authors used for the code though.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:26 PM
I am perfectly happy with the iPhone 4 I have.
BTW, what is that extra little rectangle above the speaker? My phone doesn't have that.:confused:
It does, you cant see it.
It is a secret location tracker
BTW, what is that extra little rectangle above the speaker? My phone doesn't have that.:confused:
It does, you cant see it.
It is a secret location tracker
villanova329
Nov 16, 12:46 PM
Do they have to remake a new "Universal Binary?" Because aren't the current UB's for Intel and PPC? Please tell me they wont. I don't wnat to have to wait again for new UB's
DewGuy1999
Apr 10, 05:53 PM
A&W Coney, Onion Rings and Root Beer for dinner...yum!
more...
MBHockey
Jan 9, 02:08 PM
Stupid news ticker gave it away. That's busch league.:(
cal6n
May 2, 10:47 AM
Google's approach is completely different. When phones running the Google OS detect any wireless network, they beam its MAC, ssid, signal strength and GPS coordinates to Google servers, along with the unique ID of the handset.
You can check if any androids have reported your home network to google by inputting your router's MAC here:
http://samy.pl/androidmap/
You can check if any androids have reported your home network to google by inputting your router's MAC here:
http://samy.pl/androidmap/
more...
BenRoethig
Oct 2, 07:14 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
Exactly my point. If windows iPod users could transfer their iPod media to Zune and Windows media player, it would be a huge plus for them. Remember, most iPod owners don't belong to the church of Mac. We already know they are more than willing to live outside accepted ethics if it suits them.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
Exactly my point. If windows iPod users could transfer their iPod media to Zune and Windows media player, it would be a huge plus for them. Remember, most iPod owners don't belong to the church of Mac. We already know they are more than willing to live outside accepted ethics if it suits them.
JTR7
Oct 2, 02:30 PM
Maybe that's not an axiom for "degree of caring" for some people. To the contrary, and considering that Jobs seems to have an affinity to some Japanese aesthetic sensibilities, the "eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing" imperative for family space presumes some degree of sharing of such spaces with no negative notion of "lesser". To make all such facilities that private makes them isolated, stifling the family-oriented intimacy of the desired imperative. Perhaps more so, the extra bedrooms get only part-time use, so there is no need to commit extensive resources full-time to serving each of them individually (see prior comments on why no library/gym/sauna/screening-room/etc.).
I don't have a problem with your philosophy. In my own home, only the master has its own bath (moreso because the house was built prior to the fad of private baths for individual bedrooms). However, I do not believe that comments such as "Some people obviously want their homes to feel like a home rather than a hotel." are fair. If true777 wants to have a large home, its his/her prerogative. Maybe you all should stop judging how others spend their money. Many of you seem to think that luxuries cannot be used for family time. As if you can't watch a movie with another person.
"Deserve" is a loaded term here.
It's his home. You're a guest therein. Yes, the homeowner gets the best facilities therein, and only the snooty see that as a snub. If nothing else, he's there and using some areas full-time/daily, while guests are occasional.
Of late I'm more struck by how many people presume everyone else must think like them, and impute malice where others don't. Whither celebrating diversity?
I don't know why you're applying this to me. I did say that my comments were speculation. I'm only providing a speculative reason for why people give individual bedrooms individual baths.
Right, we wouldn't want any little princelings to have to share a baath, would we? After all, doing so might compromise their senses of entitlement and privilege. :rolleyes:
Who are you to judge how I'd raise my kids? I earned my money, and I'll spend it however I damn well please.
I don't have a problem with your philosophy. In my own home, only the master has its own bath (moreso because the house was built prior to the fad of private baths for individual bedrooms). However, I do not believe that comments such as "Some people obviously want their homes to feel like a home rather than a hotel." are fair. If true777 wants to have a large home, its his/her prerogative. Maybe you all should stop judging how others spend their money. Many of you seem to think that luxuries cannot be used for family time. As if you can't watch a movie with another person.
"Deserve" is a loaded term here.
It's his home. You're a guest therein. Yes, the homeowner gets the best facilities therein, and only the snooty see that as a snub. If nothing else, he's there and using some areas full-time/daily, while guests are occasional.
Of late I'm more struck by how many people presume everyone else must think like them, and impute malice where others don't. Whither celebrating diversity?
I don't know why you're applying this to me. I did say that my comments were speculation. I'm only providing a speculative reason for why people give individual bedrooms individual baths.
Right, we wouldn't want any little princelings to have to share a baath, would we? After all, doing so might compromise their senses of entitlement and privilege. :rolleyes:
Who are you to judge how I'd raise my kids? I earned my money, and I'll spend it however I damn well please.
more...
Eraserhead
Apr 16, 04:21 PM
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know.
What if you don't know any role models (e.g. you are poor?)
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know. Teaching "gay history" is more about promoting homosexuality than helping children.
I would presume that "gay history" just means that when you cover Leonardo da Vinci you point out that he was gay.
What if you don't know any role models (e.g. you are poor?)
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know. Teaching "gay history" is more about promoting homosexuality than helping children.
I would presume that "gay history" just means that when you cover Leonardo da Vinci you point out that he was gay.
MacRumors
Oct 6, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/06/verizon-targets-atandts-network-with-theres-a-map-for-that-campaign/)
TechFlash noted (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/verizon_goes_right_after_att_with_new_ad_campaign.html) yesterday that Verizon is rolling out a new advertising campaign targeting AT&T's network by focusing on the geographic coverage of the competing companies' networks. The campaign also employs a twist on Apple's "There's an app for that" iPhone slogan with its own tagline of "There's a map for that."The fine print also is worth checking out. It reads: "Browse the Web and download music and apps, at 3G speed, in five times more places than the nation's number two wireless carrier. Before you pick a phone, pick a network."A television commercial featuring the new campaign also debuted yesterday.
Article Link: Verizon Targets AT&T's Network With 'There's a Map For That' Campaign (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/06/verizon-targets-atandts-network-with-theres-a-map-for-that-campaign/)
TechFlash noted (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/verizon_goes_right_after_att_with_new_ad_campaign.html) yesterday that Verizon is rolling out a new advertising campaign targeting AT&T's network by focusing on the geographic coverage of the competing companies' networks. The campaign also employs a twist on Apple's "There's an app for that" iPhone slogan with its own tagline of "There's a map for that."The fine print also is worth checking out. It reads: "Browse the Web and download music and apps, at 3G speed, in five times more places than the nation's number two wireless carrier. Before you pick a phone, pick a network."A television commercial featuring the new campaign also debuted yesterday.
Article Link: Verizon Targets AT&T's Network With 'There's a Map For That' Campaign (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/06/verizon-targets-atandts-network-with-theres-a-map-for-that-campaign/)
more...
Benjy91
Apr 25, 11:47 AM
I wonder if it'll feel noticeable.
EricNau
Jan 12, 12:25 AM
they didn't release iwork and ilife probably b/c of Amazon putting it up on their website early
Actually, I believe it wasn't released at MacWorld for two reasons...
1) Time. They keynote ran about 2 hours as is (already above the average). Introducing two new software suites would easily add another 45 minutes (making the event much too long).
2) The focus was clearly the iPhone, and Jobs didn't want anything to steal its glory.
It makes much more sense to introduce the iPhone at MacWorld and have a separate event for Leopard, iLife, and iWork.
Actually, I believe it wasn't released at MacWorld for two reasons...
1) Time. They keynote ran about 2 hours as is (already above the average). Introducing two new software suites would easily add another 45 minutes (making the event much too long).
2) The focus was clearly the iPhone, and Jobs didn't want anything to steal its glory.
It makes much more sense to introduce the iPhone at MacWorld and have a separate event for Leopard, iLife, and iWork.
more...
APPLENEWBIE
Jan 10, 12:15 AM
Apple TV update:
A flower tattoo it#39;s one of
more...
Labels: best Charlotte tattoos, best tattoos in Charlotte, Charlotte tattoo, Charlotte tattoo artist, flower tattoo, Gerald Gaddy, lower back tattoo, tattoo
Flower Tattoo Designs
more...
Re: Pretty flower Tattoo#39;s.
Breathe Flower Tattoo
Flower Tattoo Designs
iluomo
Apr 30, 12:09 PM
I noticed most of the criticism stems from the changes in iCal and Address Book which are both disgusting. Sadly they havent changed yet
I positively loathe the look of the "new" iCal and Address Book. It looks like a design from the mid 90's. I cannot comprehend how a company who goes for a clean, smooth, modern aesthetic could produce a faux leather interface and think that meshes with that aesthetic. This is something I would expect from Palm or Microsoft. But Apple? I'm amazed by how off the mark this is. :confused:
I positively loathe the look of the "new" iCal and Address Book. It looks like a design from the mid 90's. I cannot comprehend how a company who goes for a clean, smooth, modern aesthetic could produce a faux leather interface and think that meshes with that aesthetic. This is something I would expect from Palm or Microsoft. But Apple? I'm amazed by how off the mark this is. :confused:
more...
extraextra
Nov 23, 04:16 PM
$11, oh wow! :eek:
Every penny counts though, right? ;)
Every penny counts though, right? ;)
WeegieMac
Mar 18, 02:55 AM
But people actually seem to hate Apple because they can't afford their products. Most of them admitted that had the iPhone been cheaper they'd buy one, hence they can't afford it so they are bitter.
Nail. Hit. On. The. Head.
In personal experience, most of the Apple "haters" I've known have fallen into the category if they could afford an Apple product, then they wouldn't hate.
Hating something is easier than openly admitting "I want that but cannot afford it", so by creating a hate figure out of the company/products, it makes it easier for the person to "accept" that they will never own the product they secretly lust after.
Nail. Hit. On. The. Head.
In personal experience, most of the Apple "haters" I've known have fallen into the category if they could afford an Apple product, then they wouldn't hate.
Hating something is easier than openly admitting "I want that but cannot afford it", so by creating a hate figure out of the company/products, it makes it easier for the person to "accept" that they will never own the product they secretly lust after.
more...
iBunny
Jan 8, 10:29 PM
I want a 15'' MacBook Pro.
2.6GHz Penryn
1680x1050 Display
512MB of Video Memory
I will be happy to sell my current MBP which I bought in August for the Above mentioned computer.
2.6GHz Penryn
1680x1050 Display
512MB of Video Memory
I will be happy to sell my current MBP which I bought in August for the Above mentioned computer.
hulugu
Mar 3, 10:45 PM
...
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining....
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)[/QUOTE]
It's interesting, AFAICT, the courts have mainly avoided creating a 'right' to collective bargaining and have remaindered this structure to legislative acts like the NLRB.
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
A conflict of interest? I disagree, this is akin to being on the hiring committee for your boss�a common corporate and university structure. Extend the logic of this and you're effectively arguing that no public employee, from police officer to NHS doctor should be able to vote.
What's important about the conflict in a conflict of interest is whether or not the union's interest runs counter to the government's, which is at the very least arguable.
Lee, my wife is a teacher. I'm quite aware of how much they make. For the record, they aren't required to have masters degrees (where do you get this stuff?). Most importantly, without thuggish unions, good teachers like my wife would make far more money than they do today, while the bad ones would make less or be fired.
How? Without the union, bad teachers would presumably be fired, but how would this raise wages directly or indirectly?
Have you seen the movie 'Waiting for Superman' by chance, Lee?
Many have argued that this is a piece of agitprop and is not a fair documentary.
Bill Gates accurately pointed out the failure of allowing the unionization of public employees and the incredible damage it's causing our state budgets. Thankfully, people like him are willing to look at the facts and report honestly on the situation instead of pretending like the government can produce miracles out of thin air or that money grows on trees.
I'm not so sure you should declare the genius of Gates on a Mac forum. ;)
Are you aware of the number of school districts that have unions and those that do not and what the test scores for ACT/SAT are? I'm wondering if there's at least a correlative connection between the two. Adding in the variable of education spending might also be useful.
Might have to go to mass media complete.
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining....
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)[/QUOTE]
It's interesting, AFAICT, the courts have mainly avoided creating a 'right' to collective bargaining and have remaindered this structure to legislative acts like the NLRB.
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
A conflict of interest? I disagree, this is akin to being on the hiring committee for your boss�a common corporate and university structure. Extend the logic of this and you're effectively arguing that no public employee, from police officer to NHS doctor should be able to vote.
What's important about the conflict in a conflict of interest is whether or not the union's interest runs counter to the government's, which is at the very least arguable.
Lee, my wife is a teacher. I'm quite aware of how much they make. For the record, they aren't required to have masters degrees (where do you get this stuff?). Most importantly, without thuggish unions, good teachers like my wife would make far more money than they do today, while the bad ones would make less or be fired.
How? Without the union, bad teachers would presumably be fired, but how would this raise wages directly or indirectly?
Have you seen the movie 'Waiting for Superman' by chance, Lee?
Many have argued that this is a piece of agitprop and is not a fair documentary.
Bill Gates accurately pointed out the failure of allowing the unionization of public employees and the incredible damage it's causing our state budgets. Thankfully, people like him are willing to look at the facts and report honestly on the situation instead of pretending like the government can produce miracles out of thin air or that money grows on trees.
I'm not so sure you should declare the genius of Gates on a Mac forum. ;)
Are you aware of the number of school districts that have unions and those that do not and what the test scores for ACT/SAT are? I'm wondering if there's at least a correlative connection between the two. Adding in the variable of education spending might also be useful.
Might have to go to mass media complete.
arn
Oct 2, 04:39 PM
The problem is that I don't see how it can be iTunes compatible without Apple's involvement. (See above post on Real Harmony). iTunes will only query ITMS for validating a DRMed file, not DoubleTwist or Amazon. Without iTunes things get a lot less compelling.
B
perhaps true... but depends on how it works. if it's just tied to an email address, if they can encode that same email address into the files, it would probably work. Alternatively, it could also mean that someone could come out with a non-iTunes media player that doesn't validate against a server.
arn
B
perhaps true... but depends on how it works. if it's just tied to an email address, if they can encode that same email address into the files, it would probably work. Alternatively, it could also mean that someone could come out with a non-iTunes media player that doesn't validate against a server.
arn
Truffy
Mar 25, 04:33 AM
My first Mac (G4 Cube) came with both OS9 and Cheetah. OS X was barely usable then (to a non-propellorhead newbie), and I started mainly with the old OS. God how that looks tired now. For me, OS X didn't really start until Panther.
I still have that Cube. Great little computer!
I still have that Cube. Great little computer!
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
sartinsauce
Oct 17, 09:30 AM
It's VHS vs. BETAMAX all over again. Hopefully this time, the superior technology will prevail.
You know, I was going to suggest that, but I figured it would be over the heads of most of the folks in this forum. Needless to say, we're both grandpa's (grandma's) around here.
Similar characterstics to that format war. Betamax (Blu-Ray) has superior image quality, but VHS (HD DVD) is cheaper to produce. Ultimately, production costs may be the deciding factor in this war. Backward compatibility with (SD) DVD is a nice added bonus, if the manufacturers put decent upconverters into the boxes. What's up with Sony and it's effing production line anyway? Delays, delays, delays. They're full of it these days.
On the way in to work this morning, I was thinking that HD DVD is about to win this war. If PS3 tanks, Blu-Ray may be lost forever.
You know, I was going to suggest that, but I figured it would be over the heads of most of the folks in this forum. Needless to say, we're both grandpa's (grandma's) around here.
Similar characterstics to that format war. Betamax (Blu-Ray) has superior image quality, but VHS (HD DVD) is cheaper to produce. Ultimately, production costs may be the deciding factor in this war. Backward compatibility with (SD) DVD is a nice added bonus, if the manufacturers put decent upconverters into the boxes. What's up with Sony and it's effing production line anyway? Delays, delays, delays. They're full of it these days.
On the way in to work this morning, I was thinking that HD DVD is about to win this war. If PS3 tanks, Blu-Ray may be lost forever.
sunfast
Oct 3, 06:15 PM
And for me it comes full circle....
I couldn't believe it today when I checked my profile that I've been a member here for nearly a year. But it makes sense - Jobsie keynoting MWSF 2006 was front page news when I joined.
Here's to another great MacWorld :)
I couldn't believe it today when I checked my profile that I've been a member here for nearly a year. But it makes sense - Jobsie keynoting MWSF 2006 was front page news when I joined.
Here's to another great MacWorld :)
SBlue1
May 4, 03:53 AM
I don't really see why Apple will never do that. When Jobs said styluses are crap, obviously he didn't mean styluses as writing devices, he meant styluses as the way to interact with OS.
Education applications seem to be of some importance to Apple, and stylus support is pretty much required to make iPad useful for students, for example.
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
tell me i'm wrong.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
You are maybe wrong, cause I don't use a stylus. :)
A friend is using one and he said it works perfectly once you find the best stylus. There are a lots of different pens. He tried out a few in the store and he said the bad drawing comes from the cheap pens not because of the ipad screen. Try the griffin stylus if you can test it somewhere.
Education applications seem to be of some importance to Apple, and stylus support is pretty much required to make iPad useful for students, for example.
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
tell me i'm wrong.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
You are maybe wrong, cause I don't use a stylus. :)
A friend is using one and he said it works perfectly once you find the best stylus. There are a lots of different pens. He tried out a few in the store and he said the bad drawing comes from the cheap pens not because of the ipad screen. Try the griffin stylus if you can test it somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment