Rogue.
Apr 25, 12:32 PM
Obviously a fake, the keyboard keys are square on mac keyboards. This photo has been stretched.
arunrajmohan
Sep 12, 07:44 AM
It's called hype, my friend.
Mr. Davidleblond,
Hype dont make the world's largest online music store, buddy.:rolleyes:
Mr. Davidleblond,
Hype dont make the world's largest online music store, buddy.:rolleyes:
Surely
Apr 5, 10:51 PM
May it bring you success and wealth! :D
;)
I already found a quarter when I was walking to my car at the gym!
;)
I already found a quarter when I was walking to my car at the gym!
longofest
Nov 16, 01:05 PM
please no page 1 vs page 2 comments... :)
more...
Dento el texto estaba impreso
Tipos de texto para la
more...
texto para invitacion
Invitaciones para Bodas
more...
Invitaciones Para Bodas Novios
Texto para invitaciones de
more...
Invitaciones+para+una+oda
invitaciones de oda en
more...
invitación de oda te
Invitación de oda DV1021
more...
de textos para bodas
para hacer invitaciones de
more...
Invitaciones+para+una+oda
Ideas textos para invitaciones
frases invitacion boda
more...
Hastings101
May 3, 09:52 PM
And I'll buy one when it comes with dual fold-out screens in a**-kicking neon colors and a choice of animal stripes, lightning bolts or fire emblems, and is sold at Wal-mart in shrink-wrapped packaging for $9.99 and has commercials featuring hot girls in bikinis jumping on a trampoline.
In other words, we're both out of luck.
I would buy that. I would buy two of that.
In other words, we're both out of luck.
I would buy that. I would buy two of that.
andrewbecks
May 2, 08:55 PM
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
more...
Steve Ballmer
Apr 29, 03:15 PM
My understanding is that unlike Windows, Apple offers one (or two if server edition) version of the OS, be the most experienced pro or the new comer you use the same system.
Supposedly Lion is going to combine the client and server versions. This was the case with DP1 but it seems DP2 and onward continue to offer two versions, so maybe they reconsidered.
To the people posting screenshots: You do know that you're breaking the non disclosure agreement you made with Apple when you signed up for the Mac Dev Program? If they track you down, the small print pretty much says they can do very evil things to you. Tred carefully, it's likely Apple will be watching out for people like you.
Apple has yet to do a single thing against the individuals or websites that have now posted hundreds of screenshots. I highly doubt anything will happen, it's just not worth their time to go after every single person taking screenshots. Besides, I'm sure they'd much rather expend their efforts going after people leaking the actual OS.
Supposedly Lion is going to combine the client and server versions. This was the case with DP1 but it seems DP2 and onward continue to offer two versions, so maybe they reconsidered.
To the people posting screenshots: You do know that you're breaking the non disclosure agreement you made with Apple when you signed up for the Mac Dev Program? If they track you down, the small print pretty much says they can do very evil things to you. Tred carefully, it's likely Apple will be watching out for people like you.
Apple has yet to do a single thing against the individuals or websites that have now posted hundreds of screenshots. I highly doubt anything will happen, it's just not worth their time to go after every single person taking screenshots. Besides, I'm sure they'd much rather expend their efforts going after people leaking the actual OS.
wrldwzrd89
Apr 7, 09:18 AM
Lots of rumors coming out about Windows 8, the next version of Windows.
First off, looks like Microsoft's copying Apple again: they're including a built-in PDF reader in Windows 8, and creating an APPX system for packaging applications in self-contained, sealed packages (a la Mac OS X): http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-secrets-modern-reader-135788
Secondly, MSIE for mobile devices and MSIE for "traditional" Windows may be merging, similar to how Safari is developed: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-secrets-internet-explorer-immersive-135787
Finally, a little feature that should've been in Windows 7 - automatic colorization of the translucent window title bars to match your desktop: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-secrets-aero-autocolorization-135807
First off, looks like Microsoft's copying Apple again: they're including a built-in PDF reader in Windows 8, and creating an APPX system for packaging applications in self-contained, sealed packages (a la Mac OS X): http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-secrets-modern-reader-135788
Secondly, MSIE for mobile devices and MSIE for "traditional" Windows may be merging, similar to how Safari is developed: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-secrets-internet-explorer-immersive-135787
Finally, a little feature that should've been in Windows 7 - automatic colorization of the translucent window title bars to match your desktop: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-secrets-aero-autocolorization-135807
more...
jamieg
Sep 12, 04:35 AM
It's streamed to a room with selected journalists, no member of the public will see it until it's posted in full later on by Apple on their website.
Thanks
:mad:
Thanks
:mad:
PlaceofDis
Jan 13, 03:04 PM
That childish prank is close to the kind of thing that Woz pulled in college, so I can appreciate the humor on one level. The problem is that this was done at a trade show and is completely unacceptable behavior for any group passing themselves off as professional journalists or industry bloggers who wish to be taken seriously.
If I were CES management, I'd ban them for life. Can't imagine Apple will let them anywhere near Moscone.
agreed. they should totally be banned for this. its not acceptable behavior.
I agree it was immature.
Still, it probably will lead vendors to 'secure' their sets in the future, and the fact that it was so obnoxious and obvious means it's very unlikely this sort of vulnerability will present itself next year.
the thing is, at a trade show, this shouldn't be an issue, as since gizmondo wants to act like a child, people have to spend more time and energy to make sure it doesn't happen again? its everyone paying for some stupid prank that was meaningless in the first place, which is way gizmondo fails.
If I were CES management, I'd ban them for life. Can't imagine Apple will let them anywhere near Moscone.
agreed. they should totally be banned for this. its not acceptable behavior.
I agree it was immature.
Still, it probably will lead vendors to 'secure' their sets in the future, and the fact that it was so obnoxious and obvious means it's very unlikely this sort of vulnerability will present itself next year.
the thing is, at a trade show, this shouldn't be an issue, as since gizmondo wants to act like a child, people have to spend more time and energy to make sure it doesn't happen again? its everyone paying for some stupid prank that was meaningless in the first place, which is way gizmondo fails.
more...
err404
May 2, 11:52 AM
I didn't say that opting in to the crowd sourced database affected your device, I'm saying that now that the tin-foil hat brigade have an option to completely disable this cached database file, _that_ could affect performance for things like Maps because it will have to calculate position from new data every time.
The only way to remove the cache after 4.3.3 will be to disable location services. They wont have poor location service performance, they will have none. :rolleyes:
The only way to remove the cache after 4.3.3 will be to disable location services. They wont have poor location service performance, they will have none. :rolleyes:
Jetson
Oct 12, 10:15 AM
The reason I posted my concern about the scratches on the 5G iPod is because I'm a longtime Apple customer. I was one of the first to buy the iPod when it came to market. I love Apple products.
However, Apple has responded to this scratch issue very poorly. Apple won't even acknowledge that there is a problem, blaming scratches on customer abuse.
Well when you start blaming the customers, then you are definitely on the wrong road. Customers who are not enamored of Apple (don't own a Mac) will switch to the Zune. If you can't understand the basics of how the market operates, then I can see why you are taking potshots.
SavMan hasn't provided any reference or link to support his claim, true or not, physics or not. His claims are anecdotal. Second, whatever the cause of the proliferation of scratches which have generated many, many complaints, denying that scratches exist is foolish, indeed stupid.
If Apple wants to keep its iPod cash cow, I sincerely hope that they address the scratch issue. There is serious competition on the horizon (Zune) and you can't take the customer for granted anymore.
However, Apple has responded to this scratch issue very poorly. Apple won't even acknowledge that there is a problem, blaming scratches on customer abuse.
Well when you start blaming the customers, then you are definitely on the wrong road. Customers who are not enamored of Apple (don't own a Mac) will switch to the Zune. If you can't understand the basics of how the market operates, then I can see why you are taking potshots.
SavMan hasn't provided any reference or link to support his claim, true or not, physics or not. His claims are anecdotal. Second, whatever the cause of the proliferation of scratches which have generated many, many complaints, denying that scratches exist is foolish, indeed stupid.
If Apple wants to keep its iPod cash cow, I sincerely hope that they address the scratch issue. There is serious competition on the horizon (Zune) and you can't take the customer for granted anymore.
more...
skunk
Apr 22, 12:27 PM
To me, the whole idea is completely redundant.
Cloudane
Jan 9, 12:03 PM
In terms of new stuff I think just the thin portable, as that's the only thing there's been any leaks/evidence for (the leaks usually have everything covered!)
Other than that, refreshes - in order of likelihood: MBP refresh with the new keyboard (even tho I think it'd look a bit odd if it's white), 16GB iPhone (not 3G yet), Glossy ACD option, Cheap ACD option (watch for the gradients and poor quality!), MacBook refresh, maybe some tweak to the ATV, maybe a non Glossy iMac option (just to wind up those who bought an iMac and dislike it!).
Things I don't expect them to update: the iMac (already done recently), the Mac Mini (ditto and they don't like updating it), or any of the iPods (also too soon) or the Mac Pro or XServe (that would be silly, and the place would get firebombed)
Other than that, refreshes - in order of likelihood: MBP refresh with the new keyboard (even tho I think it'd look a bit odd if it's white), 16GB iPhone (not 3G yet), Glossy ACD option, Cheap ACD option (watch for the gradients and poor quality!), MacBook refresh, maybe some tweak to the ATV, maybe a non Glossy iMac option (just to wind up those who bought an iMac and dislike it!).
Things I don't expect them to update: the iMac (already done recently), the Mac Mini (ditto and they don't like updating it), or any of the iPods (also too soon) or the Mac Pro or XServe (that would be silly, and the place would get firebombed)
more...
snberk103
Apr 13, 09:48 AM
The 9/11 hijackers did not bring anything on the plane that was banned. No amount of groping or searching by airport security would've prevented 9/11.
9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not a failure of airport security.
I thought box cutters were banned? Can you provide a link to support your statement?
Box cutters were banned in response to 9/11. As always, airline security is reactive. Bush sold us a bill of goods while increasing the size and cost of government.
The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not a failure of airport security.
I thought box cutters were banned? Can you provide a link to support your statement?
Box cutters were banned in response to 9/11. As always, airline security is reactive. Bush sold us a bill of goods while increasing the size and cost of government.
The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 12:21 PM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
It looks like a retina display to me. People often thought the display was paper on first glance on the demo units after the iPhone 4 announcement.
Doesn't the status bar look taller? I remember a thread on here talking about how they overheard engineers discussing iOS 5 and that was one of the things that would be different. It was going to allow for an SBSettings type of thing and maybe a place for notifications to scroll? Anyways, cool. But I think this is fake.
It looks about the same as my iPhone 4's status bar.
It looks like a retina display to me. People often thought the display was paper on first glance on the demo units after the iPhone 4 announcement.
Doesn't the status bar look taller? I remember a thread on here talking about how they overheard engineers discussing iOS 5 and that was one of the things that would be different. It was going to allow for an SBSettings type of thing and maybe a place for notifications to scroll? Anyways, cool. But I think this is fake.
It looks about the same as my iPhone 4's status bar.
more...
mw360
Apr 6, 08:15 AM
That is the very first thing I thought of. I remember that rejection and how ridiculous it was for 2 reasons.
1: She was trying to promote Apple's iAds! How does it hurt Apple?
2: Has Apple seen all the apps that could easily be called "not required" or "redundant"?
She'd be taking money for worthless ad impressions.
1: She was trying to promote Apple's iAds! How does it hurt Apple?
2: Has Apple seen all the apps that could easily be called "not required" or "redundant"?
She'd be taking money for worthless ad impressions.
Cagle
Apr 5, 03:22 PM
Am I the only one not finding this on the App Store?
no, but you're the only one looking...
no, but you're the only one looking...
gregorsamsa
Jan 12, 06:29 PM
Well, if you haven't met any of these mindless droids, consider yourself lucky. I've met enough of them to be sufficiently spooked. I've got a couple of them on a forum I moderate; one has a link to Apple store in his signature and spends most of his time posting the most contrived lies about Windows you could imagine (how you cannot switch a PC on without being drowned in a barrage of viruses etc), and the rest of his time coercing PC users into switching. It's quite clear from his descriptions of Windows he hasn't touched a PC since circa 1996, and any assurances that Windows has come a long way in terms of stability and security since Win95 are met with a kind of "lalalalalalalala...." At one point he insisted that a Mac Mini G4 1.42GHz is much faster than any PC ever made. When faced with real life benchmark tests where a midrange PC blasted the Mini into oblivion, he maintained that it was due to poor knowledge of Mac optimization on the part of the developers (whom I know to be Mac enthusiasts who port the software to Windows). This is just one example, over the years I've stumbled across way too many to list here.
It's great that people are enthusiastic about products, and most Mac users are regular joes who are just that, but it is my personal opinion that there also exists a 'Church of Apple' with 'members' who are smug, patronizing, holier-than-thou, basking in the glory of some perceived exclusivity and enlightenment, borderline brainwashed lodge brothers with a special handshake. It sickens me to no end. Again, this is merely one man's opinion, I know you wouldn't agree so let's just leave it there.
Regarding Steve, you're darn tootin' I don't know him. Only seen him in blurry keynote webcasts.
I consider your post to be spot on! I'm a Mac owner, but I must confess that I find most of my PC-owning friends to be refreshingly free of the type of smug, sycophantic, elitism some Mac people can't help but exhibit. Many PC owners I know wouldn't even recognize Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, etc. if they were introduced to them in the street.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
It's great that people are enthusiastic about products, and most Mac users are regular joes who are just that, but it is my personal opinion that there also exists a 'Church of Apple' with 'members' who are smug, patronizing, holier-than-thou, basking in the glory of some perceived exclusivity and enlightenment, borderline brainwashed lodge brothers with a special handshake. It sickens me to no end. Again, this is merely one man's opinion, I know you wouldn't agree so let's just leave it there.
Regarding Steve, you're darn tootin' I don't know him. Only seen him in blurry keynote webcasts.
I consider your post to be spot on! I'm a Mac owner, but I must confess that I find most of my PC-owning friends to be refreshingly free of the type of smug, sycophantic, elitism some Mac people can't help but exhibit. Many PC owners I know wouldn't even recognize Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, etc. if they were introduced to them in the street.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
GFLPraxis
Apr 13, 12:22 PM
The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
When was the last time a European or Japanese plane were hijacked before 9/11? That's an ambiguous statistic. Nobody was hijacking planes before and nobody's hijacked planes since.
Nobody hijacks Israeli planes either, and they're subject to much more terrorist attention than we are.
In fact, TSA has twice failed to stop a bomber on a plane since 9/11. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were stopped by passengers.
TSA's measures aren't working, but a measure of common sense can easily mitigate the damage of someone smuggling a boxcutter or knife on to a plane.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
When was the last time a European or Japanese plane were hijacked before 9/11? That's an ambiguous statistic. Nobody was hijacking planes before and nobody's hijacked planes since.
Nobody hijacks Israeli planes either, and they're subject to much more terrorist attention than we are.
In fact, TSA has twice failed to stop a bomber on a plane since 9/11. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were stopped by passengers.
TSA's measures aren't working, but a measure of common sense can easily mitigate the damage of someone smuggling a boxcutter or knife on to a plane.
flopticalcube
Apr 13, 11:10 AM
Great, a shoot out on a plane loaded with innocent bystanders. :rolleyes:
El Al relies primarily on profiling. Armed Sky Marshalls are standard on ALL flights to/from/within the US although they may not be present on any particular flight.
El Al relies primarily on profiling. Armed Sky Marshalls are standard on ALL flights to/from/within the US although they may not be present on any particular flight.
lmalave
Oct 19, 10:44 AM
Well my 1300 shares will become 2600 in less than an year.:D Apple will keep going up and up as long the economy does not tank.:)
Showoff ;)
You're basically bragging that you have $100K in Apple stock. Nice!!!! :D Your faith is being rewarded handsomely...
Showoff ;)
You're basically bragging that you have $100K in Apple stock. Nice!!!! :D Your faith is being rewarded handsomely...
7o7munoz7o7
Dec 13, 05:08 PM
How about not even putting it up on the site? My question was why do they have to have a new article for every time someone says that?
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
Yeah I think its time for you to say goodbye....whats wrong with talking about Michael Jackson dying? He was a great, and just because he died didnt mean his music and fans did...everyone that wants the VZW iPhone are going to read the articles that talks about it...if you dont care about this, then dont move your hand and click on the link about this. Sick of people like you.
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
Yeah I think its time for you to say goodbye....whats wrong with talking about Michael Jackson dying? He was a great, and just because he died didnt mean his music and fans did...everyone that wants the VZW iPhone are going to read the articles that talks about it...if you dont care about this, then dont move your hand and click on the link about this. Sick of people like you.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment