dont24
Nov 24, 08:12 AM
Hopefully it still applies to corporate discounts too. Can anyone confirm what?
Looks like it does. I checked the corporate discount page. The 24" iMac regular $1999, is $1880 - $101. Not bad. $1779 shipped.
Too bad there's no savings on the Mac Pro.
Looks like it does. I checked the corporate discount page. The 24" iMac regular $1999, is $1880 - $101. Not bad. $1779 shipped.
Too bad there's no savings on the Mac Pro.
Hovey
Jul 21, 03:12 PM
Apple should simply focus on resolving their own issues. It's not their job to be the "tattle tell" police pointing out problems or potential problems with their competitors. The press and/or markets will uncover issues with Apple competitors.
They weren't doing it for that purpose. It was to show people that it's a common problem with physics no matter who makes the phone. People were thinking that only Apple's iPhone has the problem and they were simply saying, no, it's not because it's apple product, it's because it's a cell phone.
They weren't doing it for that purpose. It was to show people that it's a common problem with physics no matter who makes the phone. People were thinking that only Apple's iPhone has the problem and they were simply saying, no, it's not because it's apple product, it's because it's a cell phone.
darh
Sep 12, 08:05 AM
I thought tht too, but there's already a section on the page for trailer. Just about the iTunes Videos
and under the films, stands "more music video's" hmmm thats strange:rolleyes:
and under the films, stands "more music video's" hmmm thats strange:rolleyes:
zane
Aug 7, 07:24 PM
making the acds a higher resolution definitely means that there will be new ones soon just like the powerbooks screen before the macbook pro
more...
cmwade77
May 4, 10:55 AM
You know, you can always manually install the App on Android or use the Amazon App Store, Easy Tether (it's only USB though) is still there. Competition is always a good thing, as the Amazon App Store shows.
Eraserhead
Mar 4, 02:10 AM
Firing incompetent teachers sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't require unions to be disbanded to achieve. The British teachers unions aren't that strong, and still we have huge problems getting rid of poor teachers.
Jail time for strikers is bizarre and totally unacceptable.
Additionally there is no way you can claim that it is a "individual liberty" position to hold to be for jailing strikers.
Jail time for strikers is bizarre and totally unacceptable.
Additionally there is no way you can claim that it is a "individual liberty" position to hold to be for jailing strikers.
more...
sososowhat
Sep 28, 06:52 PM
Larry Ellison's's place on Mountain Home Rd, also in Woodside, is an unbelievable extravagance -- quite the opposite of Jobs'. http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-03-27/news/17591051_1_hot-tub-pond-tons
I believe the place is built entirely without nails, using old Japanese techniques. He brought in 3750 tons of hand-chisled granite, and 5000 tons of boulders, and moved 81,000 cubic yards of earth for his estate. I haven't been in, but it's intriguing from the gate-house.
-- Bridges and pathways lead to a teahouse, moon pavilion, guesthouse, bridge house, boathouse, barn and "Katsura house," a made-in-Japan near replica of a famous teahouse built as part of a royal compound of the same name in Kyoto, Japan, in the early 1600s.
-- The project: Transform 23 acres in Woodside into Japanese-style imperial villa with 10 hand-crafted buildings, bridges, manicured gardens, ponds, waterfalls and islands.
-- Price tag: Reportedly approaching $100 million, up from $40 million estimate in 1996, with two years to go.
Jobs' current place in Palo Alto is similarly modest to his new one -- though a little less private: You can often see him inside, and occasionally picking apples in the yard.
I believe the place is built entirely without nails, using old Japanese techniques. He brought in 3750 tons of hand-chisled granite, and 5000 tons of boulders, and moved 81,000 cubic yards of earth for his estate. I haven't been in, but it's intriguing from the gate-house.
-- Bridges and pathways lead to a teahouse, moon pavilion, guesthouse, bridge house, boathouse, barn and "Katsura house," a made-in-Japan near replica of a famous teahouse built as part of a royal compound of the same name in Kyoto, Japan, in the early 1600s.
-- The project: Transform 23 acres in Woodside into Japanese-style imperial villa with 10 hand-crafted buildings, bridges, manicured gardens, ponds, waterfalls and islands.
-- Price tag: Reportedly approaching $100 million, up from $40 million estimate in 1996, with two years to go.
Jobs' current place in Palo Alto is similarly modest to his new one -- though a little less private: You can often see him inside, and occasionally picking apples in the yard.
BLUELION
Apr 6, 01:17 PM
Well, take the superbowl ads. Many, and I mean mean are lame but you know what people flock to them every hear like flies on scat just to watch. Why? Because there is a hype around the superbowl event and we have been conditioned over time to tune in.
There is no event going with the app except that apple's iAd company developed many of them. Its just a collection of ads to being public awareness in what is being developed in advertisements. You don't have do download all the apps to see the content, just the one and you can review, browse all you want. Kind of like Macrumors and the articles. You don't have to read these things, but you do and you rate it as postive and negative or you leave your comments like you did before.
Its just a marketing exposure thing dude, get over it.
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
There is no event going with the app except that apple's iAd company developed many of them. Its just a collection of ads to being public awareness in what is being developed in advertisements. You don't have do download all the apps to see the content, just the one and you can review, browse all you want. Kind of like Macrumors and the articles. You don't have to read these things, but you do and you rate it as postive and negative or you leave your comments like you did before.
Its just a marketing exposure thing dude, get over it.
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
more...
brywalker
Apr 29, 05:07 PM
Don't you think they were really unintuitive? It works on a touch screen. Not on a OSX device.
Naah. You could click on them like normal and it would slide the button over to where you clicked - or you could slide it manually. It looked slick and operated either way.
Naah. You could click on them like normal and it would slide the button over to where you clicked - or you could slide it manually. It looked slick and operated either way.
apachie2k
Sep 12, 07:21 AM
Will we be able to watch this event live? How will coverage (if there will be any) be brought to us?
through mac rumors of course...
through mac rumors of course...
more...
JayMysterio
Nov 14, 10:24 PM
Actually a crappy story is held against many movies, tv shows, books, and etc. That's why we call them crappy and they fail. Case in recent point, the drubbing that Skyline is getting, besides it's spectacular trailer. It looks good, but it came in fourth in movies this week, and word of mouth may make that as high as it goes. The complaint? Weak stories, characters, and a truly stupid & frustrating ending.
I think what Black Ops single player suffers from is what MW2 did as well. It tries to hard, every section has to have a Michael Bay moment. The game feels it has to wow you every fifteen minutes, and in between it tries to cram in a complex story that just ends up being non sensical.
I pity anyone trying to figure MW2's story that hasn't played the original MW. I admit I was surprised to find out that MW2's story had something to do with the first one. Not because it was a clever plot twist, but because it was pulled out of thin air. There was no fore shadowing allowing the player a chance to figure things out, as usual stories do, it was just BAM!
The first MW was more stream lined with only two storylines, eventually dovetailing into one. Things were easier to follow, and the moments far more memorable. That race thru the tilted ship, the crawling thru the grass by the Russian army, holding them off later by yourself, and that final car chase were truly memorable moments. MW2 and now Black Ops are just one forgettable blur, that I only recall the trudging thru, not the fascination of what I saw.
I think what Black Ops single player suffers from is what MW2 did as well. It tries to hard, every section has to have a Michael Bay moment. The game feels it has to wow you every fifteen minutes, and in between it tries to cram in a complex story that just ends up being non sensical.
I pity anyone trying to figure MW2's story that hasn't played the original MW. I admit I was surprised to find out that MW2's story had something to do with the first one. Not because it was a clever plot twist, but because it was pulled out of thin air. There was no fore shadowing allowing the player a chance to figure things out, as usual stories do, it was just BAM!
The first MW was more stream lined with only two storylines, eventually dovetailing into one. Things were easier to follow, and the moments far more memorable. That race thru the tilted ship, the crawling thru the grass by the Russian army, holding them off later by yourself, and that final car chase were truly memorable moments. MW2 and now Black Ops are just one forgettable blur, that I only recall the trudging thru, not the fascination of what I saw.
TheMacBookPro
Mar 19, 06:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
iPhone is a great target because of the "holier than thou" culture that Steve Jobs helped create. And now they come out with a phone with a shatter-prone back, flat/square as a brick, still retains the small 3.5" screen and the antenna problems. This is all excellent fuel for the haters.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Not that they need to change anything, obviously. Keep the same shatter prone design, horrible ergonomics, 3.5" screen and just bolt on the A5 chip and everyone'll still lap it up ;)
One a slightly more serious note- the 'haters' hate the iPhone because of 1)Jobs and his (stupid) smug-ness (iPhone is the best phone the world. The screen is far better than anything else. Everyone is copying us, we are the benchmark and everyone else should bugger off) and 2)the fanboys who lap it all up and 'spreads the word' like door to door salesmen.
Then, when someone disagrees with them (God forbid), the fanboys call the 'iHaters' retards because obviously the iPhone is the best, Android users are just too poor to afford an iphone and thats why we 'envy' (LOL) iUsers and so on.
Rant directed at nobody in particular. Just getting it out of my system.
iPhone is a great target because of the "holier than thou" culture that Steve Jobs helped create. And now they come out with a phone with a shatter-prone back, flat/square as a brick, still retains the small 3.5" screen and the antenna problems. This is all excellent fuel for the haters.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Not that they need to change anything, obviously. Keep the same shatter prone design, horrible ergonomics, 3.5" screen and just bolt on the A5 chip and everyone'll still lap it up ;)
One a slightly more serious note- the 'haters' hate the iPhone because of 1)Jobs and his (stupid) smug-ness (iPhone is the best phone the world. The screen is far better than anything else. Everyone is copying us, we are the benchmark and everyone else should bugger off) and 2)the fanboys who lap it all up and 'spreads the word' like door to door salesmen.
Then, when someone disagrees with them (God forbid), the fanboys call the 'iHaters' retards because obviously the iPhone is the best, Android users are just too poor to afford an iphone and thats why we 'envy' (LOL) iUsers and so on.
Rant directed at nobody in particular. Just getting it out of my system.
more...
Sesshi
Jan 12, 07:24 PM
I'm quite surprised that the fact that Jobs is a smug, egotistical sociopath is news. You have to be, to be that good.
cult hero
Mar 25, 05:54 PM
I really *like* the fact that the OS X and iOS groups seem to be talking to each other and sharing ideas with each other, rather than being in squabbling little camps that snipe at each other like you see at Microsoft.
Me too. The trouble I see here is that every time OS X adopts some interface concept or anything else from iOS there is this ridiculous frenzy that goes like this: "OH NOES!!!!!!111111one APPLE IS GONNA LOCK DOWN APPS!"
Which, they COULD do but I just don't think they're that stupid. (If they do it's back to Linux for me.)
Me too. The trouble I see here is that every time OS X adopts some interface concept or anything else from iOS there is this ridiculous frenzy that goes like this: "OH NOES!!!!!!111111one APPLE IS GONNA LOCK DOWN APPS!"
Which, they COULD do but I just don't think they're that stupid. (If they do it's back to Linux for me.)
more...
Bistroengine
Apr 6, 12:37 AM
Thread re-opened, although further cleanup may still occur.
If you wish to continue posting in this thread (or any other) please observe the Forum Rules, particularly those related to the Rules for Appropriate Debate (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Rules_for_Appropriate_Debate).
Thank God (or should I say Demi-god :) ) that you closed this post down earlier. I promise to not try and engage the Brit or the Irishman in a conversation ever again!
If you wish to continue posting in this thread (or any other) please observe the Forum Rules, particularly those related to the Rules for Appropriate Debate (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Rules_for_Appropriate_Debate).
Thank God (or should I say Demi-god :) ) that you closed this post down earlier. I promise to not try and engage the Brit or the Irishman in a conversation ever again!
Cooknn
Sep 12, 09:20 AM
Perhaps they'll include HD-DVD burners in the new MBP's. :)I figure that's why the new Mac Pro's come with the extra optical drive bay - to accomodate a Blu-Ray / HD-DVD drive when they hit the streets. Then we can burn true HD content (with Dolby Digital EX sound).
more...
3soteric
Mar 17, 06:42 AM
Not to condone OP's actions in any way, but karma isn't real.
People should conduct themselves according to their moral code, not out of fear that the universe will somehow reward or punish them. This is the 21st century, it's time mankind grew up and took some personal responsibility. There is no "higher power" judging our actions.
But thats so sad....to be all alone...Is there really no higher power? Not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
People should conduct themselves according to their moral code, not out of fear that the universe will somehow reward or punish them. This is the 21st century, it's time mankind grew up and took some personal responsibility. There is no "higher power" judging our actions.
But thats so sad....to be all alone...Is there really no higher power? Not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
aiqw9182
Apr 29, 01:50 PM
Everything and I mean *everything* is constantly being shared from these developer's builds. Check youtube. It is what it is. There are no killer features in iLion. Certainly nothing like going from Tiger to Leopard.
Don't kid yourself. Lion's list of new features is much longer than Leopard's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard#End-user_features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.7#New_or_changed_features
Don't kid yourself. Lion's list of new features is much longer than Leopard's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard#End-user_features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.7#New_or_changed_features
charlituna
Jan 3, 12:20 AM
I don't see Verizon faring much better than AT&T at the start. They can do all the preparing and testing that they want, but the only way they're really going to be able to know if they can handle it is when it happens.
Yep. Theoreticals are one thing, but the real test is when it happens
. AT&T's probably going to be dishing out a LOT of early termination fees.
Or not. After all, it isn't like you can take your phone with you to Verizon. Many people aren't going to want to spend the money on an ETF because that's the money they would use for a new phone.
That said, after all these years there are probably enough folks already on Verizon that would jump for an iphone. Enough that it could get interesting in some areas. Just like it did with ATT who thought they could handle the load.
Yep. Theoreticals are one thing, but the real test is when it happens
. AT&T's probably going to be dishing out a LOT of early termination fees.
Or not. After all, it isn't like you can take your phone with you to Verizon. Many people aren't going to want to spend the money on an ETF because that's the money they would use for a new phone.
That said, after all these years there are probably enough folks already on Verizon that would jump for an iphone. Enough that it could get interesting in some areas. Just like it did with ATT who thought they could handle the load.
applemacdude
Jan 12, 06:49 PM
who are you kidding? what part of iphone is not previously existed in technology? yay it has a nice UI, like all other apple products, but the hardware?
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
that they were able to put all that together and package it in a consumer friendly way
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
that they were able to put all that together and package it in a consumer friendly way
smadder
Jan 14, 05:32 PM
Worse than lame.
Where does Gizmodo operate from? I'm going to pay them a visit and turn their monitors off. If you can't tell that's a metaphor for kicking them in the shins and then the face.
And then maybe if there's enough time, I'll force them to watch Dark Planet or that episode of Battlestar Galactica 1980 where the kids go up in a tree and turn invisible and start throwing apples at the people down below and they have those ridiculous viper bikes.
Anyone remember Tek Wars? What a show!
That... that was something.
Where does Gizmodo operate from? I'm going to pay them a visit and turn their monitors off. If you can't tell that's a metaphor for kicking them in the shins and then the face.
And then maybe if there's enough time, I'll force them to watch Dark Planet or that episode of Battlestar Galactica 1980 where the kids go up in a tree and turn invisible and start throwing apples at the people down below and they have those ridiculous viper bikes.
Anyone remember Tek Wars? What a show!
That... that was something.
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.
Chubypig
Sep 9, 03:38 PM
Too bad I missed it. I hate rap/hiphop AND football. ;)
Howmanoid
Apr 15, 10:30 PM
Apple's success is in large part driven by the ecosystem that they have built around iPod/iTunes/iPhone/iPad. Good luck to anyone breaking into that anytime soon. The day I can buy a song on Mac/PC, synch it to my Android phone, then stream it around my home to HiFi or TV then we will have a competitor. Apple knows it, the record companies and studios know it, someone needs to tell Google.
No comments:
Post a Comment