LEStudios
Apr 15, 08:18 PM
Obviously fake. Look at the slanted iPhone writing on the bottom photo. Horrible photoshop skills
yeah I heard this before when early pictures and videos of the 2009 Mac mini. Then it came true. If you look at the iPad Accessories this would use the same dock that the iPad currently uses. Apple hardly make single use of accessories per product. It's varies of products. I say it's a winner to me! :D
yeah I heard this before when early pictures and videos of the 2009 Mac mini. Then it came true. If you look at the iPad Accessories this would use the same dock that the iPad currently uses. Apple hardly make single use of accessories per product. It's varies of products. I say it's a winner to me! :D
BC2009
May 2, 11:56 AM
Oh the conspiracies!!!!
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
I for one cannot remember a single iAd ever popping that was more appropriate based on my location (e.g.: a restaurant ad showing up when I was near a location for that restaurant chain). I seriously doubt that Apple cares where I have been for the past year -- especially with the huge degree of error that trilateration offers. But they definitely care about the crowd-sourced data to understand what regions iPhones are being used most heavily.
Certainly, if Apple wanted to record my personal position it would make MUCH MUCH MUCH more sense for their servers to simply record the query my phone makes to obtain the portion of the crowd-sourced database that my phone wants to cache. That query could easily include a more exact GPS position (i.e.: give me the part of the cache near this location). It could also include a phone identifier. Of course, a timestamp could be associated with the query. They could keep the information on their own servers where I would NEVER EVER see it and they could easily access it. Keeping it on my phone simply does not make sense if Apple really wanted this information -- it makes it easy for me to find and it is of less use to Apple that way.
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
I for one cannot remember a single iAd ever popping that was more appropriate based on my location (e.g.: a restaurant ad showing up when I was near a location for that restaurant chain). I seriously doubt that Apple cares where I have been for the past year -- especially with the huge degree of error that trilateration offers. But they definitely care about the crowd-sourced data to understand what regions iPhones are being used most heavily.
Certainly, if Apple wanted to record my personal position it would make MUCH MUCH MUCH more sense for their servers to simply record the query my phone makes to obtain the portion of the crowd-sourced database that my phone wants to cache. That query could easily include a more exact GPS position (i.e.: give me the part of the cache near this location). It could also include a phone identifier. Of course, a timestamp could be associated with the query. They could keep the information on their own servers where I would NEVER EVER see it and they could easily access it. Keeping it on my phone simply does not make sense if Apple really wanted this information -- it makes it easy for me to find and it is of less use to Apple that way.
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
0010101
Oct 29, 04:10 PM
For the record, i'd gladly pay top dollar for OSX 10.5 if I could put it on my own 'home built' x86 box with Apples blessing.
Here's an idea for Apple.. start selling ATX motherboards for the DIY crowd bundled with the latest MacTel OSX version, and let the consumer just drop them in their own case.
Really.. that would be going right back to their roots (the Apple I was sold like that)
Price the board/OS bundle package at a point that makes it cost prohibitive for OEM's to build clones with the boards.. but low enough that the 'Techno Geek' (who would otherwise simply buy a simular spec'ed Intel Chipset board and run their bootleg osX86 on it.) is buying their parts right from Apple.
Let's face it.. if you're a guy who wants OSX, but can't shell out the $1000+ bucks for an iMac, but could.. say.. spend $300 for the OS and a board you can just drop in your exsisting PC case, and use your current hard drive, power supply, etc.. you would probably not even bother trying to build a 'bootleg' MacTel.
That way, Apple stays in firm control of the hardware, makes their big fat margins, and nips the whole 'osx86' thing right in the bud.. not to mention that such a program would have little to no impact on their 'full machine' sales (because the typical Mac buyer isn't a person real interested in 'building' their own computer)
Here's an idea for Apple.. start selling ATX motherboards for the DIY crowd bundled with the latest MacTel OSX version, and let the consumer just drop them in their own case.
Really.. that would be going right back to their roots (the Apple I was sold like that)
Price the board/OS bundle package at a point that makes it cost prohibitive for OEM's to build clones with the boards.. but low enough that the 'Techno Geek' (who would otherwise simply buy a simular spec'ed Intel Chipset board and run their bootleg osX86 on it.) is buying their parts right from Apple.
Let's face it.. if you're a guy who wants OSX, but can't shell out the $1000+ bucks for an iMac, but could.. say.. spend $300 for the OS and a board you can just drop in your exsisting PC case, and use your current hard drive, power supply, etc.. you would probably not even bother trying to build a 'bootleg' MacTel.
That way, Apple stays in firm control of the hardware, makes their big fat margins, and nips the whole 'osx86' thing right in the bud.. not to mention that such a program would have little to no impact on their 'full machine' sales (because the typical Mac buyer isn't a person real interested in 'building' their own computer)
Thomas Veil
Mar 4, 09:37 PM
Huh. They must've gone to the bullpen -- we're starting to see some relief bitching.
Somebody has already tried that FDR quote. And I replied:
Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours and provides supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes beyond their own job, and even beyond our borders. For the labor movement is people. Our unions have brought millions of men and women together ... and given them common tools for common goals. -- John F. KennedyAnyone else on the board, please feel free to borrow that quote whenever somebody invokes FDR.
Now: corporate contributions are legal money laundering operations. If you follow the money, I pay for goods which go into company funds which are used to contribute to buy Republican candidates who are dedicated to passing corporate-friendly laws that make my air dirtier and my food unhealthier, and that lower my standard of living until they finally ship my job to another country. Nice racket they have going. Has anybody ever noticed that the well never dries of money to buy off our government? I just love watching them cry about regulation; very classy.
The Wisconsin senators, on the other hand, are spoiled children...you know, just like Abe Lincoln (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/24/when_lincoln_fled.html). ;)
Somebody has already tried that FDR quote. And I replied:
Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours and provides supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes beyond their own job, and even beyond our borders. For the labor movement is people. Our unions have brought millions of men and women together ... and given them common tools for common goals. -- John F. KennedyAnyone else on the board, please feel free to borrow that quote whenever somebody invokes FDR.
Now: corporate contributions are legal money laundering operations. If you follow the money, I pay for goods which go into company funds which are used to contribute to buy Republican candidates who are dedicated to passing corporate-friendly laws that make my air dirtier and my food unhealthier, and that lower my standard of living until they finally ship my job to another country. Nice racket they have going. Has anybody ever noticed that the well never dries of money to buy off our government? I just love watching them cry about regulation; very classy.
The Wisconsin senators, on the other hand, are spoiled children...you know, just like Abe Lincoln (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/24/when_lincoln_fled.html). ;)
obeygiant
Apr 15, 02:41 PM
People who have made history have just been people and gay or straight have never come into it. What does it matter? A stand alone class in college on "gay studies" I would have no problem with. The requirement in public schools to teach gay history is bit absurd.
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
lewdvig
Apr 15, 09:42 PM
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
It is CNC milled plastic, similar to the current MacBook.
It is CNC milled plastic, similar to the current MacBook.
smokingtrout
Sep 12, 01:11 AM
I really don't care anymore...tomorrow will probably follow a familiar formula - some disappointments, some bullseyes.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
A projector, similar to (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/07/epson-announces-emp-twd3-projector-with-built-in-dvd-player/) large capacity HDD, WIFI, Bluetooth, and maybe a media-only version of OSX. In fact, maybe just Front Row. One could transfer movies downloaded (or created in iMovie) to the projector's HDD to then be projected to a wall or screen. Better yet, with DSL or Cable hooked up directly, one could download directly to the HDD. DVR? Additional Combo drive? Built in speakers (perhaps a couple from the Hi-FI) would provide sound should you choose not to use the optical audio out. Firewire 400/800. HDMI I/O The kicker? A protective sheath and handle like in the patent picture that would allow the owner to take the relatively compact projector to other places. The addition of WiFi would allow future Apple wireless products to recognize and stream to the projector. Who wants to crowd around an iPod to look at a clip on a 2.5" display anyway?
Wow. All this speculation has gone to my head. Time for bed.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
A projector, similar to (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/07/epson-announces-emp-twd3-projector-with-built-in-dvd-player/) large capacity HDD, WIFI, Bluetooth, and maybe a media-only version of OSX. In fact, maybe just Front Row. One could transfer movies downloaded (or created in iMovie) to the projector's HDD to then be projected to a wall or screen. Better yet, with DSL or Cable hooked up directly, one could download directly to the HDD. DVR? Additional Combo drive? Built in speakers (perhaps a couple from the Hi-FI) would provide sound should you choose not to use the optical audio out. Firewire 400/800. HDMI I/O The kicker? A protective sheath and handle like in the patent picture that would allow the owner to take the relatively compact projector to other places. The addition of WiFi would allow future Apple wireless products to recognize and stream to the projector. Who wants to crowd around an iPod to look at a clip on a 2.5" display anyway?
Wow. All this speculation has gone to my head. Time for bed.
shawnce
Oct 30, 10:21 AM
The end-fact that Apple's source does not appear to be publicly accessible does not appear to be in dispute, but rather questions have arisen as to whether it was ever publicly accessible (publicly accessible as defined by not requiring registration with Apple. The source is still free).
Any item released under the APSL (Apple Public Source License) requires and has required since the dawn of the APSL users to register an account with Apple (free account). This is done so Apple can track that you have read the APSL before you gain access to the source. It has always been this way... in fact this registration requirement was talked about on and off for years on the Darwin lists (for example (http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-development/2001/Mar/msg00329.html)) and was one of the reasons that OpenDarwin was started (some folks just couldn't bring themselves to register).
A few years ago Apple integrated the open source account system with their Apple ID system so that if you have an Apple ID you didn't have to create a separate account you could just use that. See last paragraph of this email (http://lists.apple.com/archives/Publicsource-announce/2003/Aug/msg00000.html).
All Apple Developer Accounts (ADC) can be used as an Apple ID, as can .Mac accounts, Apple support forums accounts, Apple store accounts, etc.
Finally the 10.4.8 source never got linked on the top level darwin source page, only 10.4.7 got listed most recently (I have been looking for the last 3 weeks). The reason is that Apple is transitioning over to macosforge.org (that is the site that lists links to Intel version of XNU and only that site) and they appeared to have hit some system resource issue that has slowed this transition. As I noted in my prior post you can access 10.4.8 sources using a direct link to the tarball.
As a side note I have worked on Darwin sources since it was first put online under the APSL and I worked on aspects of OpenDarwin when it first got going. So I am speaking from a long history of experience with Darwin.
Any item released under the APSL (Apple Public Source License) requires and has required since the dawn of the APSL users to register an account with Apple (free account). This is done so Apple can track that you have read the APSL before you gain access to the source. It has always been this way... in fact this registration requirement was talked about on and off for years on the Darwin lists (for example (http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-development/2001/Mar/msg00329.html)) and was one of the reasons that OpenDarwin was started (some folks just couldn't bring themselves to register).
A few years ago Apple integrated the open source account system with their Apple ID system so that if you have an Apple ID you didn't have to create a separate account you could just use that. See last paragraph of this email (http://lists.apple.com/archives/Publicsource-announce/2003/Aug/msg00000.html).
All Apple Developer Accounts (ADC) can be used as an Apple ID, as can .Mac accounts, Apple support forums accounts, Apple store accounts, etc.
Finally the 10.4.8 source never got linked on the top level darwin source page, only 10.4.7 got listed most recently (I have been looking for the last 3 weeks). The reason is that Apple is transitioning over to macosforge.org (that is the site that lists links to Intel version of XNU and only that site) and they appeared to have hit some system resource issue that has slowed this transition. As I noted in my prior post you can access 10.4.8 sources using a direct link to the tarball.
As a side note I have worked on Darwin sources since it was first put online under the APSL and I worked on aspects of OpenDarwin when it first got going. So I am speaking from a long history of experience with Darwin.
adamfilip
Sep 25, 11:00 AM
the Aperture page on Apples website has been updated to reflect the new version
Eidorian
Nov 23, 11:55 PM
Oh nicee. The online Apple Store just went down right when I was refreshing. :DThat's a good sign. I want my sleep! *sob*
AppleEverything
Apr 16, 08:50 AM
Agreed.
agree. it would be a neat design for the phone but im hoping its differnt than that. plus if it were all metal the signal would be horrible.
agree. it would be a neat design for the phone but im hoping its differnt than that. plus if it were all metal the signal would be horrible.
SeaFox
Oct 3, 10:58 PM
I reaallly don't see Leopard being out in January.
Yeah, I'm thinking March.
Yeah, I'm thinking March.
toughboy
Oct 10, 07:07 PM
I'm sorry, but with the release of the "true video" iPod "imminent" for months now, I'm just not going to pay any attention whatsoever until I have one in my hands.
Just like the iPhone, PowerBook G5 (and more recently, Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, although that release hasn't been "imminent" often enough yet,) etc.
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
Just because it's getting a lot of talk, and Engadget claims their sources are good, is no reason to upgrade it to page 1 status. (Heck, the iWalk got a lot of talk back in the day, and SpyMac claimed their sources were good. That didn't make it true.)
+1
Just like the iPhone, PowerBook G5 (and more recently, Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, although that release hasn't been "imminent" often enough yet,) etc.
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
Just because it's getting a lot of talk, and Engadget claims their sources are good, is no reason to upgrade it to page 1 status. (Heck, the iWalk got a lot of talk back in the day, and SpyMac claimed their sources were good. That didn't make it true.)
+1
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.
Nd2ski00
Apr 6, 12:42 AM
Should be as popular as a TV channel with non stop commercials.
DoFoT9
Jul 22, 04:54 AM
That is a very poor speed, at least I'm getting close to 10 mb/s but paying for 30 I think... $76 a month. These monopolies we have in the US are a drag, they can do whatever they want and the gov does nothing about it. Mine is adequate for all the folding at least.
i pay $130aus a month ($~110 US) for 50GB of downloads! (adsl2+). at least i hit the speeds.
are you on cable lord?
i pay $130aus a month ($~110 US) for 50GB of downloads! (adsl2+). at least i hit the speeds.
are you on cable lord?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 05:57 PM
That lady has "issues", just looking at her demeanour. :eek:
'atsa no lady, 'atsa my wife!
'atsa no lady, 'atsa my wife!
koruki
Mar 17, 06:12 PM
for the things you mentioned you should replace the word 'envy' with 'jealously' :)
I've bought the first iPhone and have never gone back. I totally understand your situation lol, it comes with owning any luxury item. Usually its people who've never owned it themself that go bashing it. I personally haven't had as much encounters but I have friends who get harassed constantly lol.
The antennagate thing is the classic example of a non-user/owner reading some silly article and gripping it for every attack. None of my friends or myself use a case and we have absolutely no reception issues.
The funniest case was my friends colleague attacking him, saying it was the worse phone ever, most overpriced phone ever, its heavy! it has no flash! His Xperia X10 was miles better! Week later he buys his own iPhone 4 and stayed quiet about the topic. I rest my case.
On a positive note, I always get good encounters with the girls at work about iPhones lol.
I've bought the first iPhone and have never gone back. I totally understand your situation lol, it comes with owning any luxury item. Usually its people who've never owned it themself that go bashing it. I personally haven't had as much encounters but I have friends who get harassed constantly lol.
The antennagate thing is the classic example of a non-user/owner reading some silly article and gripping it for every attack. None of my friends or myself use a case and we have absolutely no reception issues.
The funniest case was my friends colleague attacking him, saying it was the worse phone ever, most overpriced phone ever, its heavy! it has no flash! His Xperia X10 was miles better! Week later he buys his own iPhone 4 and stayed quiet about the topic. I rest my case.
On a positive note, I always get good encounters with the girls at work about iPhones lol.
dpaanlka
Jan 15, 03:32 PM
Everyone is harping on the MacBook Air because of it's lack of ports or an optical drive, but at the end of the day people are still going to want to buy it. It's a nice product.
I think its very reasonably priced by the way - compare that to other machines in the class.
I think its very reasonably priced by the way - compare that to other machines in the class.
maclaptop
May 3, 02:26 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
Here's my take on it.
One of the carriers source of income is data charges. Within that category of data sales is:
1) Data used via smartphone for web access.
2) Data used via tethering your phone & laptop.
3) Data used via a laptop air card bought from the carrier.
When you use method 2 illegally, the carrier loses out on that data sale. It's been like this for years, yet not been a problem as large as it is now.
Here's my take on it.
One of the carriers source of income is data charges. Within that category of data sales is:
1) Data used via smartphone for web access.
2) Data used via tethering your phone & laptop.
3) Data used via a laptop air card bought from the carrier.
When you use method 2 illegally, the carrier loses out on that data sale. It's been like this for years, yet not been a problem as large as it is now.
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 10:35 AM
already exists - Amazon Cloud/Music Player
What's go good about it?
It's like dropbox but free for 5GB. :rolleyes:
What's go good about it?
It's like dropbox but free for 5GB. :rolleyes:
habibbijan
Nov 16, 11:46 PM
I'm all for this.
For years AMD and Intel have played "leap frog" with one another in terms of performance. It's only recently that Intel has taken the lead after a lengthy duration of AMD dominance. Now that Apple has moved to x86, I see nothing wrong with Apple offering a choice of processors based on whatever brand can offer the best price/performance ratio. Say what you want about Dell, but they've recently starting offering AMD-based computers, and in my opinion this competition is good for the consumer.
And for those of you stating that AMD processors run too hot, wake up and smell the coffee. You're about 4 years behind. Ever since Intel introduced their 90 nm "Prescott" core, their temps were blisteringly hot compared to comparable AMD processors. Of course, things are different now, and both AMD's and Intel's offering run quite cool in comparison to their previous generations.
For years AMD and Intel have played "leap frog" with one another in terms of performance. It's only recently that Intel has taken the lead after a lengthy duration of AMD dominance. Now that Apple has moved to x86, I see nothing wrong with Apple offering a choice of processors based on whatever brand can offer the best price/performance ratio. Say what you want about Dell, but they've recently starting offering AMD-based computers, and in my opinion this competition is good for the consumer.
And for those of you stating that AMD processors run too hot, wake up and smell the coffee. You're about 4 years behind. Ever since Intel introduced their 90 nm "Prescott" core, their temps were blisteringly hot compared to comparable AMD processors. Of course, things are different now, and both AMD's and Intel's offering run quite cool in comparison to their previous generations.
Mord
Apr 27, 01:19 PM
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
ipodtoucher
Apr 6, 03:45 PM
$38 in petrol.... keeps getting higher and higher....
No comments:
Post a Comment