CaoCao
Apr 18, 08:30 AM
Any basic history textbook will include basic information about a person. Left handedness often is mentioned, so is deafness, blindness and other physical differences. Homosexuality isn't in the same league, now is it?
Why do so many people have a difficult time acknowledging the unique contributions of gay people?
Have you heard of Wounded Knee? This country has a horrible problem in dealing with minorities an those on the right seem most interested in suppressing anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow and erroneous interpretation of American demographics.
It's very, very sad.
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
Why do so many people have a difficult time acknowledging the unique contributions of gay people?
Have you heard of Wounded Knee? This country has a horrible problem in dealing with minorities an those on the right seem most interested in suppressing anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow and erroneous interpretation of American demographics.
It's very, very sad.
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
stephenli
Oct 17, 09:54 PM
I have already used 220GB on music / movie / photo
I dont want to use over 20 DVD DL to backup.... its terrible
so, give me Blu-ray disc please, Steve.
currently, a BD-RW drive cost around $1000usd
if Mac equip with this monster drive, the price must increase by more or less $1000....so, does Apple waiting for a drop in price for drives?
I dont want to use over 20 DVD DL to backup.... its terrible
so, give me Blu-ray disc please, Steve.
currently, a BD-RW drive cost around $1000usd
if Mac equip with this monster drive, the price must increase by more or less $1000....so, does Apple waiting for a drop in price for drives?
French iPod
Apr 8, 08:12 PM
I was supposed to get it today but my dad had a doctor appointment so i'll be getting it tomorrow:D
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1339/ps3justcause2.jpg (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/ps3justcause2.jpg/)
so freaking can't wait to do crazy stuff in that game:D!! specially the skydiving part (Grand Theft Auto4+Spider Man 2 = Just Cause 2):D
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1339/ps3justcause2.jpg (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/ps3justcause2.jpg/)
so freaking can't wait to do crazy stuff in that game:D!! specially the skydiving part (Grand Theft Auto4+Spider Man 2 = Just Cause 2):D
ademuth93
Jul 22, 04:05 PM
Untrue. The iPhone is the only phone affected this way.
I laughed at this.
So you mean to say that holding any other phone will never change the reception at all? HA!! Have you read your cell phone's user guide? On one of the first pages they have a diagram of how to hold the phone so as not to lose as much reception. Get a life, and stop calling me fanboy (assuming you're one of "those" people) because I can enjoy a perfectly usable phone more than you can.
I laughed at this.
So you mean to say that holding any other phone will never change the reception at all? HA!! Have you read your cell phone's user guide? On one of the first pages they have a diagram of how to hold the phone so as not to lose as much reception. Get a life, and stop calling me fanboy (assuming you're one of "those" people) because I can enjoy a perfectly usable phone more than you can.
wpotere
Apr 13, 11:17 AM
There are already armed marshall on many flights in the US. WHen was the last time we had a shoot out in the sky? :rolleyes:
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plane packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plane packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
robanga
Apr 5, 09:35 PM
If i DL this an repeatedly click the ads it might increase the value of Apple stock :) in a small way...
TheNewDude
Sep 28, 12:03 PM
Oh i'm sure there will be LOTS of technology in the house.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 09:32 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.
Where can I find the definition of a smart phone?
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.
Where can I find the definition of a smart phone?
roocka
Apr 5, 03:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Is Larry Page retarded? Seriously? Have you heard him speak? I think he is retarded!
Is Larry Page retarded? Seriously? Have you heard him speak? I think he is retarded!
torbjoern
Mar 18, 04:51 AM
Nail. Hit. On. The. Head.
In personal experience, most of the Apple "haters" I've known have fallen into the category if they could afford an Apple product, then they wouldn't hate.
Hating something is easier than openly admitting "I want that but cannot afford it", so by creating a hate figure out of the company/products, it makes it easier for the person to "accept" that they will never own the product they secretly lust after.
Cognitive dissonance is easier to "harmonise by hate" (see the oxymoron here?) than to accept with an honest mind, just like some people deal with buyer's remorse by telling themselves how much they love their new product. I was a Mac-hater long before I even knew that the price was higher for Macs than for PCs, it goes back to horrific experience with a G3 iMac, a hockey puck mouse and OS 9...
In personal experience, most of the Apple "haters" I've known have fallen into the category if they could afford an Apple product, then they wouldn't hate.
Hating something is easier than openly admitting "I want that but cannot afford it", so by creating a hate figure out of the company/products, it makes it easier for the person to "accept" that they will never own the product they secretly lust after.
Cognitive dissonance is easier to "harmonise by hate" (see the oxymoron here?) than to accept with an honest mind, just like some people deal with buyer's remorse by telling themselves how much they love their new product. I was a Mac-hater long before I even knew that the price was higher for Macs than for PCs, it goes back to horrific experience with a G3 iMac, a hockey puck mouse and OS 9...
Stella
Aug 1, 10:17 AM
This is just one more reason why socialism doesn't work. It takes away the incentive of a company to put a product in the country, and the consumers ultimately suffer.
LOL.
Nice troll.
LOL.
Nice troll.
clintob
Oct 3, 03:45 PM
At the risk of having a Captain Obvious moment here, I think it's safe to say that the "we want Merom" posts are getting a tad old at best. That horse has been beaten far beyond anything resembling a humane death.
The fact is that while there are a select few of us (don't kid yourselves, the people who post on this forum represent a tiny fraction of Apple's customer base, albeit a loud fraction) that know the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, the VAST majority of users and customers neither know nor care. And to be perfectly honest, the speed difference in 99% of the things people use their computers for are unnoticeable. Try it for yourself. Web pages load at the same speed, email is sent at the same speed, and IM's come and go with the same frequency.
The truth is, Apple doesn't really care all that much about who is or isn't shipping C2D. They know that once they come out with the next big thing, all us Photoshop users and media producers will skamper to the website and order ours just as we would have if it came out a month ago. They have stock of MB and MBP to clear out, and there's no reason for them to rush into selling a processor that most people don't even know much about when their sales are still high. Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
C2D (or whatever is next) will come when Apple sees novelty sales for the iPod starting to die down. Not before.
The fact is that while there are a select few of us (don't kid yourselves, the people who post on this forum represent a tiny fraction of Apple's customer base, albeit a loud fraction) that know the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, the VAST majority of users and customers neither know nor care. And to be perfectly honest, the speed difference in 99% of the things people use their computers for are unnoticeable. Try it for yourself. Web pages load at the same speed, email is sent at the same speed, and IM's come and go with the same frequency.
The truth is, Apple doesn't really care all that much about who is or isn't shipping C2D. They know that once they come out with the next big thing, all us Photoshop users and media producers will skamper to the website and order ours just as we would have if it came out a month ago. They have stock of MB and MBP to clear out, and there's no reason for them to rush into selling a processor that most people don't even know much about when their sales are still high. Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
C2D (or whatever is next) will come when Apple sees novelty sales for the iPod starting to die down. Not before.
wordoflife
Mar 24, 03:03 PM
I never really liked OS X until 10.5.
Popeye206
Mar 29, 05:13 AM
Game developers. World of Warcraft. Adobe. Microsoft. All of these developers not only do not distribute on the App Store but can not due to the App Store's TOS. I like the App Store but the control/terms keep a lot of great programs (like World of Warcraft, which one the Apple Design Award multiple times I think) out.
What???? 30% is too much for them? Or is there something else in the terms that drive them away?
My friend... I use to work for Adobe and it's not the 30% margin keeping them away. 30% is normal for distribution.
What???? 30% is too much for them? Or is there something else in the terms that drive them away?
My friend... I use to work for Adobe and it's not the 30% margin keeping them away. 30% is normal for distribution.
TheMacBookPro
Mar 19, 11:46 AM
I've never, ever had a conversation about my phone with a random person in the street - let alone conduct comparison tests.
I'm guessing from your thread that you porbably love the iphone a bit too much... Get out and enjoy the world. Perhaps leave the phone at home!
This.
Oh please! I think that statement would be better targeted at the people who engage in this childish behaviour. I was just the recipient, also they weren't total strangers, but they weren't people that I know either.
Also, quite a few people in this thread say that these phones are the same price, well one of the main points of one of these guys was that he paid �100 for his brand new Desire and is on a �18 a month contract. In all honesty, that is a lot cheaper than any iPhone deal out there.
You're the one who took the time out of your day to start this thread and respond, lol.
This, actually, is my biggest concern: That Apple will just be smug enough to think they don't need to do anything with the design.
They did that with the iPhone and the touch and they're going to do it again. When is the question.
I'm guessing from your thread that you porbably love the iphone a bit too much... Get out and enjoy the world. Perhaps leave the phone at home!
This.
Oh please! I think that statement would be better targeted at the people who engage in this childish behaviour. I was just the recipient, also they weren't total strangers, but they weren't people that I know either.
Also, quite a few people in this thread say that these phones are the same price, well one of the main points of one of these guys was that he paid �100 for his brand new Desire and is on a �18 a month contract. In all honesty, that is a lot cheaper than any iPhone deal out there.
You're the one who took the time out of your day to start this thread and respond, lol.
This, actually, is my biggest concern: That Apple will just be smug enough to think they don't need to do anything with the design.
They did that with the iPhone and the touch and they're going to do it again. When is the question.
petrucci666
May 3, 03:39 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)
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)
Love using tetherme cracked on iphone 4 to use personal hotspot with my unlimited data. :)
Yeah, until you get a text saying that you have been upgraded to the capped tethering plan without agreeing to it.
I have unltd data, a jailbroken phone and Tetherme and believe me, I'm ready to fire this puppy up any second to use with my iPad but I'm holding back from doing so because I don't want to be forced into the capped tethering plan which is more expensive and less efficient than what I have now. Carriers suck, period.
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)
Love using tetherme cracked on iphone 4 to use personal hotspot with my unlimited data. :)
Yeah, until you get a text saying that you have been upgraded to the capped tethering plan without agreeing to it.
I have unltd data, a jailbroken phone and Tetherme and believe me, I'm ready to fire this puppy up any second to use with my iPad but I'm holding back from doing so because I don't want to be forced into the capped tethering plan which is more expensive and less efficient than what I have now. Carriers suck, period.
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.
solvs
Jan 10, 11:45 PM
All of this to gain what?:(
Attention. Or to make a lame joke that went way too far. I would be more shocked if they weren't banned from CES, and probably others. I doubt they'll get banned from Macworld this late in the game, especially after having come clean instead of someone else finding out and outing them, but they'll probably be watched more. Anything goes wrong, they'll be the first to be blamed, even if it's just a copycat. I wouldn't be surprised to find those affected not wanting to advertise anytime soon either, nor sending them products for awhile. Free advertising or not. Businesses aren't really known to have senses of humors about such things. A prank is a prank, but this is big business here and they're supposed to be professionals. There goes any credibility they had left.
They may not get any punishment for it, but if they want to make sure something similar (or worse) doesn't happen again, I'm sure they'll be more careful, but I'm also thinking those affected might want to make an example of the pranksters and the site.
Attention. Or to make a lame joke that went way too far. I would be more shocked if they weren't banned from CES, and probably others. I doubt they'll get banned from Macworld this late in the game, especially after having come clean instead of someone else finding out and outing them, but they'll probably be watched more. Anything goes wrong, they'll be the first to be blamed, even if it's just a copycat. I wouldn't be surprised to find those affected not wanting to advertise anytime soon either, nor sending them products for awhile. Free advertising or not. Businesses aren't really known to have senses of humors about such things. A prank is a prank, but this is big business here and they're supposed to be professionals. There goes any credibility they had left.
They may not get any punishment for it, but if they want to make sure something similar (or worse) doesn't happen again, I'm sure they'll be more careful, but I'm also thinking those affected might want to make an example of the pranksters and the site.
dsnort
Oct 19, 05:31 PM
When one considers Dell's quality of their computers, why are they still #1?
I love my Macbook, but I gotta admit, my Dell Inspiron never just shutdown in the middle of a sen
I love my Macbook, but I gotta admit, my Dell Inspiron never just shutdown in the middle of a sen
Creibold
Nov 23, 05:24 PM
Wow for the 80gb iPod that like what? 3%?? What a sale.
bigdz68
Nov 24, 04:42 AM
Oddly enough, from the education store, you can't get the extra discounts. Well at least not on the ipod...but on the government store ... YOU CAN!
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
Squozen
Jan 6, 05:33 AM
Many thanks for this. I'll make sure to be extra busy at work to avoid finding out anything about it, and come home to a (hopefully) nicely-streaming keynote.
wpotere
Mar 18, 01:20 PM
Threads like this crack me up....
I just gave up my iPhone for a WP7 and to be totally honest, I like it a lot more. Sure, there is a lack of app support and I would like to see it become a bit more customizable but for a phone, it, to me, is a better phone.
I just gave up my iPhone for a WP7 and to be totally honest, I like it a lot more. Sure, there is a lack of app support and I would like to see it become a bit more customizable but for a phone, it, to me, is a better phone.
arn
Jan 9, 02:35 PM
sorry about the spoiler in the ticker guys
I'm sitting here trying to do updates... that one was a mistake on my part.
Really sorry. I removed it. we'll still post the link when it comes.
arn
I'm sitting here trying to do updates... that one was a mistake on my part.
Really sorry. I removed it. we'll still post the link when it comes.
arn
No comments:
Post a Comment