tigress666
Apr 16, 10:30 AM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
I have to agree.
The biggest reason the iphone is so great to me is the fact that I could add in other programs and add functionality. I could personalize it with the programs I put on to do what I wanted to do. In fact that was something I snubbed about the iphone when it came out (in comparison to the ipaq I had that I could get other programs for it). And the one snub I don't think I was wrong about (I snubbed it for other reasons but after having one decided either it was a good idea or it wasn't something that really mattered).
If I had to only use the apps Apple gave me... I'm sorry, it wouldn't be that great of a phone. In fact I'm still wondering why anyone would buy the first one that you were stuck only with the basic stuff Apple put on, I really don't know how they convinced people to get interested in the idea. The thing that makes the iphone so great to me is it's ability to be so multi-functional in the ways *I* want it to be. Which is what being able to buy different programs gives it.
I heard somewhere that Apple was forced to let people buy other software (or something like that)? If true, Apple should be thanking that ruling.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
I have to agree.
The biggest reason the iphone is so great to me is the fact that I could add in other programs and add functionality. I could personalize it with the programs I put on to do what I wanted to do. In fact that was something I snubbed about the iphone when it came out (in comparison to the ipaq I had that I could get other programs for it). And the one snub I don't think I was wrong about (I snubbed it for other reasons but after having one decided either it was a good idea or it wasn't something that really mattered).
If I had to only use the apps Apple gave me... I'm sorry, it wouldn't be that great of a phone. In fact I'm still wondering why anyone would buy the first one that you were stuck only with the basic stuff Apple put on, I really don't know how they convinced people to get interested in the idea. The thing that makes the iphone so great to me is it's ability to be so multi-functional in the ways *I* want it to be. Which is what being able to buy different programs gives it.
I heard somewhere that Apple was forced to let people buy other software (or something like that)? If true, Apple should be thanking that ruling.
R.R.Mac
Jan 13, 05:12 AM
i am going to get an iphone and i think Jobs has done a great job of apple. I believe that the iPhone is going to be a great hit and as someone said will once again steal some (or most) of the market for phones. Apple have used their brains once more and will be a success. All they need to do now is get some game designers and design a PSP like game machine. IF apple can make this game machine and make the computers sync and stuff like that apple will have it in the bag!
Lord Blackadder
Aug 4, 11:41 AM
We should have had electric cars for short-haul 20 years ago.
Practical electric cars have been manufactured and sold for over 100 years. However, petroluem fueled cars have always offered longer range, more power, and generally lower cost. For short-haul runabouts the electric car has been available as an alternative almost as long as the car itself has existed.
EDIT: The price-gouging on the Volt is highly unproductive. The point of the Volt is to build and sell a practical, affordable series hybrid - the MSRP is already very high, so the gouging just makes the car unattainably expensive.
Practical electric cars have been manufactured and sold for over 100 years. However, petroluem fueled cars have always offered longer range, more power, and generally lower cost. For short-haul runabouts the electric car has been available as an alternative almost as long as the car itself has existed.
EDIT: The price-gouging on the Volt is highly unproductive. The point of the Volt is to build and sell a practical, affordable series hybrid - the MSRP is already very high, so the gouging just makes the car unattainably expensive.
bigmc6000
Oct 6, 10:21 AM
Except Verizon does that too!!!!
Wait, you mean that grass on the other side isn't actually greener it's just painted green?!?!?! ;)
Wait, you mean that grass on the other side isn't actually greener it's just painted green?!?!?! ;)
WhiteShadow
Aug 13, 10:50 PM
price cut? the displays still seem a bit over priced.
dime21
May 5, 11:15 AM
Why are you using fear as part of your argument? I shouldn't have to have a gun on me to feel safe in my community. It's not saying I feel immune to crime, but fear of crime shouldn't drive a person.
Not fear of crime, but rather, the desire for self-preservation. Is someone else providing that safety for you? Or are you providing it for yourself? It sounds like you're taking option 3, and not providing it at all. FYI- the supreme court ruled that the police have no legal obligation to provide for your safety. Their job is only to catch the criminals during/after a crime - not to prevent it, and not to "keep you safe". Do you also choose not to wear your seat belt in your car, because that's for people who always fear collisions, and fear of an automotive collision shouldn't drive a person?
Yes, I own a few guns and I carry a hand gun on my person anytime I leave the house. To run errands, to pick the kids up from school, you name it, I'm carrying. I look it at the same way as the fire extinguisher I have sitting in the corner of my kitchen. I really really don't want an occasion to use it. Ever. But should that occasion arise, I absolutely want to have immediate access to it. Without that fire extinguisher, all I could do is stand in the front yard and watch my home burn to the ground waiting for the fire department to arrive. Carrying a hand gun is no different that that fire extinguisher in my kitchen or the airbags in my car. I don't ever want to use them, but having them can mean the difference between life and death. It doesn't mean I'm being driven by fear of kitchen fires or vehicle collisions.
Violent criminals frequently use guns to kill people. That is a fact, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Nothing. All you can do is arm yourself to level the playing field.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
Yes, because violent criminals give you a choice. lol. Next time you're in that situation, be sure to voice your opinion to your assailant. Please sir, if you are determined to rob me, please kindly exchange your hand gun for a knife. lmao. Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
Not fear of crime, but rather, the desire for self-preservation. Is someone else providing that safety for you? Or are you providing it for yourself? It sounds like you're taking option 3, and not providing it at all. FYI- the supreme court ruled that the police have no legal obligation to provide for your safety. Their job is only to catch the criminals during/after a crime - not to prevent it, and not to "keep you safe". Do you also choose not to wear your seat belt in your car, because that's for people who always fear collisions, and fear of an automotive collision shouldn't drive a person?
Yes, I own a few guns and I carry a hand gun on my person anytime I leave the house. To run errands, to pick the kids up from school, you name it, I'm carrying. I look it at the same way as the fire extinguisher I have sitting in the corner of my kitchen. I really really don't want an occasion to use it. Ever. But should that occasion arise, I absolutely want to have immediate access to it. Without that fire extinguisher, all I could do is stand in the front yard and watch my home burn to the ground waiting for the fire department to arrive. Carrying a hand gun is no different that that fire extinguisher in my kitchen or the airbags in my car. I don't ever want to use them, but having them can mean the difference between life and death. It doesn't mean I'm being driven by fear of kitchen fires or vehicle collisions.
Violent criminals frequently use guns to kill people. That is a fact, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Nothing. All you can do is arm yourself to level the playing field.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
Yes, because violent criminals give you a choice. lol. Next time you're in that situation, be sure to voice your opinion to your assailant. Please sir, if you are determined to rob me, please kindly exchange your hand gun for a knife. lmao. Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
noservice2001
Oct 10, 05:31 PM
Nope... we're thinking this will be a totally different iPod product, separate from the normal iPod or the nano or the shuffle.
so like an iTV kinda thing?
so like an iTV kinda thing?
-hh
Oct 19, 10:16 AM
The market share (and Princeton report) are favorable news for the Mac platform and for Apple.
But it is interesting to read this from Gartner, in the light that this very same Company is also in the news right now for their "Macs should be made by Dell" splash (actual paper was "Apple Should License the Mac to Dell")
In conjunction with this articles observation that Dell's PC marketshare has been sliding (lost worldwide #1 to HP, etc), along with business reports that aren't rosey on Dell's margins (nor their get well plan, which isn't working), the newsfolk who picked up on Gartner really got their headline wrong. It really should have been IMO:
"Dell sliding bad - needs rescue in form of Mac licence from Apple".
In said report (the other one, not this one) Gartner suggested that 'Apple should concentrate on what it does best - create software - and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure.' In this report, there's not a peep of such 'black clouds on the horizon' for Apple ... must be two different guys in the Gartner shop :)
Quite interesting, since the bottom line right now is that the Mac Pro is known to be less expensive than the Dell equivalent, for what does that suggest about expertise in cutting deals with Intel, and efficiently running production & distrubution?
The reality is that Apple generally contracts out much of their manufacturing, true. However, so does Dell. As such, why should Apple bother to pay to go through Dell? That's called using a "Middle Man" and this intermediate step would increase costs, which would then either lower Apple's unit profits, or force them to raise prices ... which hearkens the 'Macs cost more' paradigm.
This is why Gartner's suggestion seems to be more aimed to help Dell through their current fiscal troubles but does not help Apple in any meaningful way at this time.
Perhaps Apple will need Dell for access to Dell's assemblers, but that would only occur when Apple's total market share gets huge - say exceeds 33%. Barring a Vista-catastrophy, at the current rate of market share growth, we're still more than a year or two away from having to cross that bridge, which ironically gives Michael Dell plenty of time to become more retrospective and apologetic about inflammatory comments he has made of Apple in the past.
-hh
PS: if you look more closely at Apple's 3Q numbers, you'll see that desktop sales were relatively flat: the growth was in laptops.
But it is interesting to read this from Gartner, in the light that this very same Company is also in the news right now for their "Macs should be made by Dell" splash (actual paper was "Apple Should License the Mac to Dell")
In conjunction with this articles observation that Dell's PC marketshare has been sliding (lost worldwide #1 to HP, etc), along with business reports that aren't rosey on Dell's margins (nor their get well plan, which isn't working), the newsfolk who picked up on Gartner really got their headline wrong. It really should have been IMO:
"Dell sliding bad - needs rescue in form of Mac licence from Apple".
In said report (the other one, not this one) Gartner suggested that 'Apple should concentrate on what it does best - create software - and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure.' In this report, there's not a peep of such 'black clouds on the horizon' for Apple ... must be two different guys in the Gartner shop :)
Quite interesting, since the bottom line right now is that the Mac Pro is known to be less expensive than the Dell equivalent, for what does that suggest about expertise in cutting deals with Intel, and efficiently running production & distrubution?
The reality is that Apple generally contracts out much of their manufacturing, true. However, so does Dell. As such, why should Apple bother to pay to go through Dell? That's called using a "Middle Man" and this intermediate step would increase costs, which would then either lower Apple's unit profits, or force them to raise prices ... which hearkens the 'Macs cost more' paradigm.
This is why Gartner's suggestion seems to be more aimed to help Dell through their current fiscal troubles but does not help Apple in any meaningful way at this time.
Perhaps Apple will need Dell for access to Dell's assemblers, but that would only occur when Apple's total market share gets huge - say exceeds 33%. Barring a Vista-catastrophy, at the current rate of market share growth, we're still more than a year or two away from having to cross that bridge, which ironically gives Michael Dell plenty of time to become more retrospective and apologetic about inflammatory comments he has made of Apple in the past.
-hh
PS: if you look more closely at Apple's 3Q numbers, you'll see that desktop sales were relatively flat: the growth was in laptops.
ipacmm
Aug 7, 04:21 PM
I might be picking up a new 30" ADC now. :)
quigleybc
Sep 9, 06:49 PM
I'm not ashasmed that our country was unprepared to deal with this
i am.
The blame will go straight to the top. Straight to George. He should have cut short his vacation on the ranch and been on a plane on day 1. This arguement will go around and around in circles, but look, people could have been saved if the administration had not cut funds to FEMA and redirected them to the war in Iraq. There were multiple interviews before the hurricane with people saying that the levy's would not hold if the hurricane hit hard. If Bill could get impeached because he got head, then is it unreasonable to hold George acountable for this? Am I the only one who feels this way?
guess so. This is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.
i am.
The blame will go straight to the top. Straight to George. He should have cut short his vacation on the ranch and been on a plane on day 1. This arguement will go around and around in circles, but look, people could have been saved if the administration had not cut funds to FEMA and redirected them to the war in Iraq. There were multiple interviews before the hurricane with people saying that the levy's would not hold if the hurricane hit hard. If Bill could get impeached because he got head, then is it unreasonable to hold George acountable for this? Am I the only one who feels this way?
guess so. This is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.
wovel
May 4, 02:18 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.
IMO, until the ipad gets this, which is entirely possible, it will remain more of a toy than a tool, and all these commercials will be nothing but fodder for the haters.
there's nothing wrong with toys, and this is a nice one, but these lines about doctors, CEOs, etc., are just plain ridiculous.
justin bieber new haircut
justin bieber new haircut 2011
Justin Bieber new haircut
justin bieber new haircut 2011
Bieber New Haircut 2011
justin bieber new haircut 2011
justin bieber new haircut 2011
justin bieber new haircut pics
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.
IMO, until the ipad gets this, which is entirely possible, it will remain more of a toy than a tool, and all these commercials will be nothing but fodder for the haters.
there's nothing wrong with toys, and this is a nice one, but these lines about doctors, CEOs, etc., are just plain ridiculous.
Cynicalone
Apr 29, 02:33 PM
The macbook air's ship with 2gig standard. They wont leave a computer that new behind.
Or the new MacBook Air and all other Macs will move to 4GB standard.
You can use it with 2GB but it is not a very good experience, even with a just handful of Apps open.
Or the new MacBook Air and all other Macs will move to 4GB standard.
You can use it with 2GB but it is not a very good experience, even with a just handful of Apps open.
bartelby
Nov 14, 03:02 AM
I forgot one other thing, which is also driving me mad... the foot steps. For some reason, Treyarch decided to take basically all sound of footsteps out of the game. That makes "Ninja" a worthless perk now, as you don't need it to be silent. But, it also makes it much easier to get ridiculously stabbed in the back.
I've heard that foot steps, along with the spawn issues, are a couple of the main things being fixed in the first patch/update. I really hope so. The fact that they made it into the final release like this is mind-boggling, so a fix is the least they can do.
Yes, I'm fed up of being stabbed in the back too
I've heard that foot steps, along with the spawn issues, are a couple of the main things being fixed in the first patch/update. I really hope so. The fact that they made it into the final release like this is mind-boggling, so a fix is the least they can do.
Yes, I'm fed up of being stabbed in the back too
pradeepgj
Apr 10, 06:54 PM
I am writing this to convey my disappointment with Consohohocken, PA Bestbuy store.
On 4/9/2011 evening 9 PM, I was told by a store rep that they were going to give out IPAD 2 on 4/10/2011 (sunday) at 11 AM and was suggested to be in line around 9 AM.
This was also told to couple of other customers who showed up at the store even at 8 AM on 4/10/2011.
But when the store opened, we were told that there were no IPAD's available.
This is very disappointing behavior from Bestbuy.
Best buy, you have lost my business for good. Of course, it may not matter to you that you lost the business of few customers.
I agree that making a decision to go wait in the front of the store is the decision made by the customer. But if Bestbuy is exploiting customers like this, they are not too far away from going down.
On 4/9/2011 evening 9 PM, I was told by a store rep that they were going to give out IPAD 2 on 4/10/2011 (sunday) at 11 AM and was suggested to be in line around 9 AM.
This was also told to couple of other customers who showed up at the store even at 8 AM on 4/10/2011.
But when the store opened, we were told that there were no IPAD's available.
This is very disappointing behavior from Bestbuy.
Best buy, you have lost my business for good. Of course, it may not matter to you that you lost the business of few customers.
I agree that making a decision to go wait in the front of the store is the decision made by the customer. But if Bestbuy is exploiting customers like this, they are not too far away from going down.
peharri
Oct 31, 09:34 AM
The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
What on Earth are you talking about? What are people stealing in the Arn's summary? The modified code isn't capable of running OS X, and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway.
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
What on Earth are you talking about? What are people stealing in the Arn's summary? The modified code isn't capable of running OS X, and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway.
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
Dagless
Mar 28, 02:52 PM
Eh, they could do with renaming this award ceremony. "App Store Award"? It's hardly "Apple Design Awards" if they're excluding a lot of those developers.
twoodcc
May 4, 06:11 AM
Bummer :( that's aggravating...
tell me about it. and i can't fix it until this weekend. but hopefully i can get it stable then
tell me about it. and i can't fix it until this weekend. but hopefully i can get it stable then
dejo
Apr 25, 03:39 PM
I declared timer as an instance method:
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender;
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*) timer;
@end
No, you didn't. You declared cancelTime: and cancelIt: as instance methods, one of which happens to have a timer parameter.
As such, I'm not sure you have a proper grasp of the fundamental concepts of Objective-C programming so I would suggest you step away from the real coding and go (re)learn those before you come back to this issue.
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender;
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*) timer;
@end
No, you didn't. You declared cancelTime: and cancelIt: as instance methods, one of which happens to have a timer parameter.
As such, I'm not sure you have a proper grasp of the fundamental concepts of Objective-C programming so I would suggest you step away from the real coding and go (re)learn those before you come back to this issue.
maflynn
Apr 11, 12:28 PM
It'll be really cool if they release a free beta for a year or so like they did with W7. The W7 beta was very stable and knocked off a nice chunk of money from a new build (for a while anyway)
I'm hoping that will be the case, and I'm thinking that will occur as they want to drum up some excitement for win8.
I'm hoping that will be the case, and I'm thinking that will occur as they want to drum up some excitement for win8.
hob
Jan 9, 03:32 PM
[snipped]
pknz
Sep 12, 12:16 AM
Here's to a ripe Apple Wednesday morning, followed by a Liverpool win.
beejam
Mar 24, 08:05 PM
Now I feel really old with all this OS X ten celebrations! Doesn't help that I started with System 6.....
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.
darkplanets
Apr 17, 11:05 AM
Our troop casualties are staggering (nearly 32,000 injured in Iraq in addition to the 4,000 dead and over 10,000 injured along with 1,500 dead in Afghanistan).
Sorry to be the insensitive bastard, but 32k injured is hardly staggering. This isn't even comparable to a real war-time situation; 4k dead soldiers is but a drop in the bucket relative to past wars, declared or otherwise.
Again, if you want to solve the security problem, excess scanners is not the answer; profiling is. It's not that hard.
Sorry to be the insensitive bastard, but 32k injured is hardly staggering. This isn't even comparable to a real war-time situation; 4k dead soldiers is but a drop in the bucket relative to past wars, declared or otherwise.
Again, if you want to solve the security problem, excess scanners is not the answer; profiling is. It's not that hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment