BForstall
Mar 17, 01:57 AM
It's very hard to take anyone seriously who believes in fairy tales like karma.
thworple
Oct 19, 09:49 AM
I would love to know what the worldwide figure is for Apple market percentage. I know it says here that its not in the top 5, hence no available data, but it would be interesting to see, particularly here in the UK, as the amount of people I know who have switched in the last year has been huge!!
fosman
Sep 12, 08:06 AM
I wonder how much Apple are set to lose by closing an international purchasing site for much of a day...?
I can imagine it will have a lot worse impact than closing the Apple Web Store, as it lends itself more to impluse buys...
Espically with big hitters like Justin Timberlake coming out this week... maybe Napstar et al have seen a spike in their sites?
just a thought!
I can imagine it will have a lot worse impact than closing the Apple Web Store, as it lends itself more to impluse buys...
Espically with big hitters like Justin Timberlake coming out this week... maybe Napstar et al have seen a spike in their sites?
just a thought!
twoodcc
May 4, 09:28 PM
yeah, -smp 12 but one core now shows minimal use. Before I restarted it it showed 4 cores with minimal usage... :confused: I'm going to try tossing the config file and see what happens. And of course it loses the wu each time I shut folding down.
oh ok. man that stinks. it losing the unit even when pressing control-c?
hmm. i'm not sure. but keep us posted on how it's going
oh ok. man that stinks. it losing the unit even when pressing control-c?
hmm. i'm not sure. but keep us posted on how it's going
quagmire
Nov 14, 09:39 PM
Mowing down thousands of civilians for now reason.
Getting killed in the second mission.
I didn't know terrorists had reasons to kill people. :p Again, you were trying to earn Makarov's trust. As controversial as that mission is, I think people are reading too much into it. It's a game and obviously that controversy brought it publicity( simply because parents didn't want their precious 8 year olds playing a game like MW2).
You got killed on that mission because Sheppard betrayed you and told Makarov that you were an American leaving a perfect scapegoat and reason for Russia to invade the US. I don't find that ludicrous at all.
Getting killed in the second mission.
I didn't know terrorists had reasons to kill people. :p Again, you were trying to earn Makarov's trust. As controversial as that mission is, I think people are reading too much into it. It's a game and obviously that controversy brought it publicity( simply because parents didn't want their precious 8 year olds playing a game like MW2).
You got killed on that mission because Sheppard betrayed you and told Makarov that you were an American leaving a perfect scapegoat and reason for Russia to invade the US. I don't find that ludicrous at all.
skunk
Apr 21, 11:19 AM
That isn't it, because I can change the scores up or down (by TWO points) at will.
![anime guys with guns. Appearance: [image]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sv0QV7FFkXatze-MDd1GBk54mdadpJT0e4SnKS66Hzwd3hNueaCxp6FW9h9Z5pniPNC-_umNCBVTa1zALkgVXR5T-xMJSsuLe2cmB4LF2MfD2FAduao8YFgNUs5iK8R2qtbW_3evnvs9Wj0Z7cvbpVVasXYHERKghtzJ61P65lD6U=s0-d "Appearance: [image]")
slb
Oct 3, 11:50 PM
They might get laughed at but apple will be the ones laughing when their the first to debut santa rosa with 800mhz fsb and nand flash. Hopefully this is whats going to happen
This is what I'm waiting for before considering a Core 2 Mac purchase. However, the current version of the Merom is drop-in replaceable with the Core Duo, so it's strange for Apple to not have something ready for the holidays. I believe they'll quietly update the MacBooks and MacBook Pros sometime in November with Core 2s.
This is what I'm waiting for before considering a Core 2 Mac purchase. However, the current version of the Merom is drop-in replaceable with the Core Duo, so it's strange for Apple to not have something ready for the holidays. I believe they'll quietly update the MacBooks and MacBook Pros sometime in November with Core 2s.
Dmac77
Oct 6, 03:21 PM
I honestly don't understand why people are always complaining about AT&T. I and no one else that I know has ever had an issue with AT&T in our area (Ann Arbor, MI). But everyone who has Verizon has issues.
We used to be on Verizon, and we would always get dropped calls. And my friends who are still on Verizon still drop calls all the time.
It's the same if I drive out into the middle of nowhere. (Which me as some friends did recently). I had 3G coverage in the middle of nowhere, but my friend on Verizon had no coverage at all.
And the funny thing is that according to the maps, Verizon is supposed to have better 3G coverage in my area which is total BS.
EDIT: I also forgot to mention the crappy customer service from Verizon. Like the manager at a Verizon store telling my mom to ****** off and die, because she was pissed that there had been a service outage for over a week.
AT&T will bend over backwards for us though. The one time we had a problem (a day long outage) they prorated 25% of our bill for that month, without us even asking.
Don
We used to be on Verizon, and we would always get dropped calls. And my friends who are still on Verizon still drop calls all the time.
It's the same if I drive out into the middle of nowhere. (Which me as some friends did recently). I had 3G coverage in the middle of nowhere, but my friend on Verizon had no coverage at all.
And the funny thing is that according to the maps, Verizon is supposed to have better 3G coverage in my area which is total BS.
EDIT: I also forgot to mention the crappy customer service from Verizon. Like the manager at a Verizon store telling my mom to ****** off and die, because she was pissed that there had been a service outage for over a week.
AT&T will bend over backwards for us though. The one time we had a problem (a day long outage) they prorated 25% of our bill for that month, without us even asking.
Don
emotion
Nov 16, 01:16 PM
I don't know where this assertion that AMD are rubbish comes from. The integrated memory controller technology that AMD have currently is beter than Intels offering (for the moment).
That said, they'd be daft to go with AMD. It's nice that they have this stick to poke Intel with though.
That said, they'd be daft to go with AMD. It's nice that they have this stick to poke Intel with though.
l3lack J4ck
Nov 23, 10:12 PM
so guys,
does anyone think that the discounts will be able to be used in conjunction with educational discounts? if so that'd be great...if not...then i guess you still save an additional 50 bucks? that'd be ok!
tell me what you think about hte question?
does anyone think that the discounts will be able to be used in conjunction with educational discounts? if so that'd be great...if not...then i guess you still save an additional 50 bucks? that'd be ok!
tell me what you think about hte question?
longofest
Oct 17, 09:06 AM
I'd rather see Blu Ray win this. It's clearly the better product on paper.
However, as history shows us, this doesn't mean it will win :(
Apple supporting both? I think it's a good option to give the customers - it's us who'll decide... But a hybrid drive will be the best bet.
Bluray is clearly better, and TDK (I think) is definitely doing an incredible job of pushing disk capacities through the 200 GB roof (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/28/tdk_200gb_blu-ray_disc/) (with multiple layers, and increasing the single-layer capacity to 33 GB). But I heard in this forum that the content creators are still using MPEG-2, which while H.264 and WM9 is fully supported in both Bluray and HD-DVD, only HD-DVD is using the advanced codecs. So, the end result is the studios aren't using Bluray to its full capacity.
If true, I'd like to see studios stop being stupid and start using the better technology. But another BIG problem I see with bluray right now is that it is so darn expensive. There is a 2:1, and sometimes a 3:1 price difference between them and HD-DVD. I don't have over a grand to spend on a Bluray player, and I don't want to wait a decade to get one either...
No they won't.
If (I said IF) everyone can end up buying a player that plays both formats, why would they have to release both formats?
Maybe all Sony movies are on Blu-Ray and all Warner Brother's movies are on HDVD. Everyone can buy either and play them in their dual-player.
That's it. Easy.
I have lots of doubts that it will work out this way, but hey...that WOULD be best, wouldn't it?
Warner looks like they will put movies out on the hybrid disks, so if you have a blu-ray player, you can play it, and if you have an HD-DVD player you can play it. Same end game. The problem comes when you have a studio like Universal that only puts out stuff on HD-DVD or Fox that just puts out on Blu-ray. Then you need the universal player.
NEC has developed a chip that can decode both, as you have hinted at. The optical technology is coming along (I saw something on Digg a little bit ago that noted some progress in that arena), but still not there yet.
However, as history shows us, this doesn't mean it will win :(
Apple supporting both? I think it's a good option to give the customers - it's us who'll decide... But a hybrid drive will be the best bet.
Bluray is clearly better, and TDK (I think) is definitely doing an incredible job of pushing disk capacities through the 200 GB roof (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/28/tdk_200gb_blu-ray_disc/) (with multiple layers, and increasing the single-layer capacity to 33 GB). But I heard in this forum that the content creators are still using MPEG-2, which while H.264 and WM9 is fully supported in both Bluray and HD-DVD, only HD-DVD is using the advanced codecs. So, the end result is the studios aren't using Bluray to its full capacity.
If true, I'd like to see studios stop being stupid and start using the better technology. But another BIG problem I see with bluray right now is that it is so darn expensive. There is a 2:1, and sometimes a 3:1 price difference between them and HD-DVD. I don't have over a grand to spend on a Bluray player, and I don't want to wait a decade to get one either...
No they won't.
If (I said IF) everyone can end up buying a player that plays both formats, why would they have to release both formats?
Maybe all Sony movies are on Blu-Ray and all Warner Brother's movies are on HDVD. Everyone can buy either and play them in their dual-player.
That's it. Easy.
I have lots of doubts that it will work out this way, but hey...that WOULD be best, wouldn't it?
Warner looks like they will put movies out on the hybrid disks, so if you have a blu-ray player, you can play it, and if you have an HD-DVD player you can play it. Same end game. The problem comes when you have a studio like Universal that only puts out stuff on HD-DVD or Fox that just puts out on Blu-ray. Then you need the universal player.
NEC has developed a chip that can decode both, as you have hinted at. The optical technology is coming along (I saw something on Digg a little bit ago that noted some progress in that arena), but still not there yet.
iMouse
May 2, 02:05 PM
Screenshot fail :) build number in Quicklook titlebar.
haha, that was the first thing I noticed too. Way to protect that build number!
haha, that was the first thing I noticed too. Way to protect that build number!
weazle1098
Oct 11, 11:50 AM
I'd like to see this thing come out soon, but I'm not in the market for anything of the sort, unless it's more like a PDA than the current iPods. But, for now, let's all let it go, the prophecy will come true. Besides who's actaully going to buy that brick of a MP3 player anyway, it looks thicker than my Powerbook. Micro$oft hasn't gotten the whole elegance thing down yet, so no worries.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 11:15 PM
Really, the only part i can accurately remember from MW2 is the DC section. I live in the south-east corner of PA so i've been to DC a few times (the DC zoo is one of my favorite places in the whole world). If i lived out west there would be nothing memorable about MW2.
Fwiw, i do hold the flawed story against it. How can i be invested in a game that pretends one man can launch a missile just by strolling into a sub and asking kindly? Even games like Ratchet and Clank have stories that make sense (in context, of course), but MW2 was just too far for me to care about it.
As far as Black Ops goes, the story is ok. I dont like the whole interrogation thing, i feel like the story could be told a bit better, though my opinion may change after i finish the campaign. Any game with nixie tubes automatically scores a few points from me ;)
COD needs another MW. MW was a massive jump forward from COD3, and it did it all perfectly. W@W, MW2, and Black Ops all feel like a new map pack for MW instead of a whole new game.
Fwiw, i do hold the flawed story against it. How can i be invested in a game that pretends one man can launch a missile just by strolling into a sub and asking kindly? Even games like Ratchet and Clank have stories that make sense (in context, of course), but MW2 was just too far for me to care about it.
As far as Black Ops goes, the story is ok. I dont like the whole interrogation thing, i feel like the story could be told a bit better, though my opinion may change after i finish the campaign. Any game with nixie tubes automatically scores a few points from me ;)
COD needs another MW. MW was a massive jump forward from COD3, and it did it all perfectly. W@W, MW2, and Black Ops all feel like a new map pack for MW instead of a whole new game.
drsmithy
Oct 5, 02:25 AM
Squarely wrong. Even "The Inquirer" has talked about the vastly superior multitasking AND SMP features of OS X Leopard, as compared to what Vista seems to offer. Damn, even today any version of Windows crawls far behind OS X in that (XP Home didn't even have SMP support in the first place).
The Inquirer is wrong (and it certainly wouldn't be the first time). Not only is Windows's SMP capability ahead of OS X's right now, it's improved even more in Vista. All those improvements in 10.4 regarding SMP ? NT was getting them 7 - 8 years ago.
Oh, and XP Home most certainly *does* support SMP (and seeing as it uses the same kernel as other versions of Windows, it makes better use of multiple CPUs than OS X does).
Windows NT was designed from day one for multiprocessor machines and has been running on them since 1993. It's at least as good as its contemporaries.
The Inquirer is wrong (and it certainly wouldn't be the first time). Not only is Windows's SMP capability ahead of OS X's right now, it's improved even more in Vista. All those improvements in 10.4 regarding SMP ? NT was getting them 7 - 8 years ago.
Oh, and XP Home most certainly *does* support SMP (and seeing as it uses the same kernel as other versions of Windows, it makes better use of multiple CPUs than OS X does).
Windows NT was designed from day one for multiprocessor machines and has been running on them since 1993. It's at least as good as its contemporaries.
MacinDoc
Sep 12, 12:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)• Several sites continue to report (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609moviestudios.html) that only the Disney Studio is on-board for the initial launch of the iTunes Movie Store.
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs. If the iTunes Movie store starts with just Disney movies, then it's dead in the water. Let's just hope that ThinkSecret is wrong again, as usual.
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs. If the iTunes Movie store starts with just Disney movies, then it's dead in the water. Let's just hope that ThinkSecret is wrong again, as usual.
snowmentality
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
I'm not surprised, but I don't like it.
One of the things I like most about the Mac is the amount of well-designed, affordable third-party applications available. On Windows my choices seemed to be either a) crappy and free or b) usable and expensive ($100+). I've bought a ton of software for the Mac that cost $20-30 and is beautiful.
The Mac App Store is fine as an option -- there really are users who would otherwise never even know about apps that didn't come with their machine, for whom a curated, controlled list of easily-installed apps opens up their world. It's a great way to do a list of recommended or highlighted apps -- sort of a nicer http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/. But it can't be the only option, not with the restrictions and fees it entails.
I'm okay with a "walled garden" for my phone. I don't want to tinker with my phone, I just want to use it. But I do sometimes need and want to tinker with things on my MBP, in order to do the real, heavy-duty work I need to do. And Apple has a lot of OS X users like me -- professionals in creative, scientific, or engineering fields whose work requires them to tinker. Hell, how would anyone even develop applications if OS X became an iOS-style walled garden?
For these reasons, I think it's awfully short-sighted of Apple to restrict design awards to apps in the App Store. Some applications with great design just won't be suitable for the App Store, because they're more niche or developer-oriented. Apple should still recognize good design and development for those applications.
I get that this might be a temporary thing to promote the App Store, since it's new. I hope that's all it's about.
One of the things I like most about the Mac is the amount of well-designed, affordable third-party applications available. On Windows my choices seemed to be either a) crappy and free or b) usable and expensive ($100+). I've bought a ton of software for the Mac that cost $20-30 and is beautiful.
The Mac App Store is fine as an option -- there really are users who would otherwise never even know about apps that didn't come with their machine, for whom a curated, controlled list of easily-installed apps opens up their world. It's a great way to do a list of recommended or highlighted apps -- sort of a nicer http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/. But it can't be the only option, not with the restrictions and fees it entails.
I'm okay with a "walled garden" for my phone. I don't want to tinker with my phone, I just want to use it. But I do sometimes need and want to tinker with things on my MBP, in order to do the real, heavy-duty work I need to do. And Apple has a lot of OS X users like me -- professionals in creative, scientific, or engineering fields whose work requires them to tinker. Hell, how would anyone even develop applications if OS X became an iOS-style walled garden?
For these reasons, I think it's awfully short-sighted of Apple to restrict design awards to apps in the App Store. Some applications with great design just won't be suitable for the App Store, because they're more niche or developer-oriented. Apple should still recognize good design and development for those applications.
I get that this might be a temporary thing to promote the App Store, since it's new. I hope that's all it's about.
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.
bassfingers
May 4, 07:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
My girlfriend is Chinese and she just doesn't understand our obsession with guns (understandably so). I don't either!
What are people so afraid of that they need guns to protect themselves from?
What are you so confident in? That 4-10 minutes IS fast enough to protect you, your daughters, or your property? How dependent should we be on the government?
National defense, not self defense
My girlfriend is Chinese and she just doesn't understand our obsession with guns (understandably so). I don't either!
What are people so afraid of that they need guns to protect themselves from?
What are you so confident in? That 4-10 minutes IS fast enough to protect you, your daughters, or your property? How dependent should we be on the government?
National defense, not self defense
sailortena
Jan 9, 07:59 AM
Realistically, this is want I want:
pudrums
Apr 8, 10:30 AM
I purchased it digitally and don't have a Blu-Ray player. Thanks anyway :p
mizzoucat
Sep 12, 08:15 AM
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
I found that page last week but didn't think much of it...... :)
I found that page last week but didn't think much of it...... :)
ZipZap
May 4, 04:54 AM
North American cellular providers are anti-consumer, nickel & diming scumbags? Say it ain't so...
:rolleyes:
With this I agree...!
:rolleyes:
With this I agree...!
flopticalcube
Nov 24, 09:10 PM
Order review is back.
"Not yet shipped" ..... sigh:(
"Not yet shipped" ..... sigh:(