Gibsonsoup
Apr 11, 06:25 PM
can't understand why it doesn't let me post the right pictures :confused:
They look exactly like the original Apple ones though
They look exactly like the original Apple ones though
flopticalcube
Apr 21, 10:28 PM
Better. Can we turn it off in User CP Options?
lilo777
Apr 25, 01:18 PM
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
But will they stop calling it a retina display then? Because the dpi will drop with screen size increase :D
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
But will they stop calling it a retina display then? Because the dpi will drop with screen size increase :D
aLoC
Jan 13, 05:27 AM
He didn't come across as too arrogant to me, if anything he was too humble. I am referring to the way he said Apple was very "fortunate" to have had breakthough products over the years. As if it was luck and not hard work. When people work hard and succeed they should take credit, not put it down to luck.
more...
aafuss1
Sep 12, 04:08 AM
A Invader ZIM or TV show themed iPod (imagine having the sigs of your favourite iTMS TV show's star on a iPod).
Will there be a musical guest, like with 2005.
Will there be a musical guest, like with 2005.
JRM PowerPod
Sep 12, 08:01 AM
i have two tutes tomorrow and lecture plus i have a 10hr shift, im going to sleep, wake me up when something happens 555-2121. Enjoy
I predict
Movie Store (US only)
New iPod (fullscreen)
New iPod nano
One more thing will be two more things
iPhone
iSharemoviestomyTV
I predict
Movie Store (US only)
New iPod (fullscreen)
New iPod nano
One more thing will be two more things
iPhone
iSharemoviestomyTV
more...
MacFan1957
Jul 21, 11:22 AM
LOL. Grow up. You sound paranoid: Everyone is out to get Apple.
The Antenna issue is real. It was bought about because enough people were having issues not due to some kind of grand conspiracy.
What, the only person talking about a "conspiracy" here is you!
The number of people having this issues was and is tiny BUT they were making a LOT of noise about it. Apple had to *defend* themselves and they did a good job! It didn't shut up the "haters" because what they want is for Apple to say "Yep the bloggers and forum posters where right and we were wrong!"
Apple addressed the issue with a smart mix of PR and facts!
The Antenna issue is real. It was bought about because enough people were having issues not due to some kind of grand conspiracy.
What, the only person talking about a "conspiracy" here is you!
The number of people having this issues was and is tiny BUT they were making a LOT of noise about it. Apple had to *defend* themselves and they did a good job! It didn't shut up the "haters" because what they want is for Apple to say "Yep the bloggers and forum posters where right and we were wrong!"
Apple addressed the issue with a smart mix of PR and facts!
quagmire
May 5, 09:27 AM
You must not read the news much. Or check out the robbery, rape, and murder statistics for your town. But I'll bet you're a nice friendly guy, and you live in the nice part of town, so it couldn't possibly happen to you, am I right? :rolleyes:
The better question here, is why do you feel so immune to violent crime?
Why are you using fear as part of your argument? I shouldn't have to have a gun on me to feel safe in my community. It's not saying I feel immune to crime, but fear of crime shouldn't drive a person.
At any rate, I don't think anyone here is going to argue the self-defense aspect of guns. Some people just don't understand the gun culture of this country.
Are you also confused about our obsessions with free speech? freedom of religion? or freedom of the press perhaps? Because those are protected in the Bill of Rights as well. Guns however, are unique in that they are the only material object, the only physical thing, that the Bill of Rights expressly protects ownership of. So we don't take to kindly to confused legislators who would try and take them away, or place unusual restrictions on that right.
So not understanding the gun culture in this country means we are against the 2nd amendment? Having the right to own guns and the gun culture are two separate matters, IMHO. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I don't understand the gun culture.
The better question here, is why do you feel so immune to violent crime?
Why are you using fear as part of your argument? I shouldn't have to have a gun on me to feel safe in my community. It's not saying I feel immune to crime, but fear of crime shouldn't drive a person.
At any rate, I don't think anyone here is going to argue the self-defense aspect of guns. Some people just don't understand the gun culture of this country.
Are you also confused about our obsessions with free speech? freedom of religion? or freedom of the press perhaps? Because those are protected in the Bill of Rights as well. Guns however, are unique in that they are the only material object, the only physical thing, that the Bill of Rights expressly protects ownership of. So we don't take to kindly to confused legislators who would try and take them away, or place unusual restrictions on that right.
So not understanding the gun culture in this country means we are against the 2nd amendment? Having the right to own guns and the gun culture are two separate matters, IMHO. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I don't understand the gun culture.
more...
macman2790
Nov 19, 01:22 AM
Intel and AMD are binary compatible with exception of AMD's SIMD instructions. Ever wonder why there isn't a different copy of Windows for AMD and Intel?
Let's not forget that IA32e (64bit mode on Intel) is better known as AMD64 and is used by Intel on license.
Anyone with an Intel mac is running software that would run on an Intel chip.
Let me clear something up, IA32e is what a 64 bit intel chip uses to run 32-bit operating systems and applications. You probably meant EM64T which is what gives the chip the capability to read 64-bit instructions.
Let's not forget that IA32e (64bit mode on Intel) is better known as AMD64 and is used by Intel on license.
Anyone with an Intel mac is running software that would run on an Intel chip.
Let me clear something up, IA32e is what a 64 bit intel chip uses to run 32-bit operating systems and applications. You probably meant EM64T which is what gives the chip the capability to read 64-bit instructions.
LastLine
Nov 23, 06:45 PM
Anyone willing to get me a $69 .mac code? ;) Much cheaper than our �69 lol. (Yeah I'm marketplace eligable before anyone panics :))
more...
devman
Jan 13, 10:01 AM
Wow, I just watched the keynote and my god this guy is hard to stand. I've watched previous keynotes and he never seemed this bad. The charisma he's displayed in the past has been replaced with smugness. He acted like the iPhone was the second coming of christ and we were so lucky that he existed to bring it upon us.
well when you can match what he has achieved in his career, you can be more humble about it. deal?
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given.
A vibrant and growing Apple Inc. is good for Mac and its users...
well when you can match what he has achieved in his career, you can be more humble about it. deal?
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given.
A vibrant and growing Apple Inc. is good for Mac and its users...
JohnnyQuest
Mar 17, 01:09 AM
As for the Karma, I found a iPhone 4 at Macy's 2-days before shopping with my girlfriend, and I didn't think twice about not turning it in. I made this woman's day when she got it back. So I figured hey, maybe that was a little something I got for doing something honest a few days before
Wow. You deserve a gold star.
Wow. You deserve a gold star.
more...
quagmire
May 4, 06:00 PM
Sorry, but whether I have guns in my house with my kids is not anyones business but my own.
Is asking if the gun is locked up and out of the kids reach really crossing the line?
I don't get why people would get so worked up over that. Is it weird for a pediatrician to ask if the gun is locked up? Sure, but I don't think it crosses any boundaries.
Is asking if the gun is locked up and out of the kids reach really crossing the line?
I don't get why people would get so worked up over that. Is it weird for a pediatrician to ask if the gun is locked up? Sure, but I don't think it crosses any boundaries.
princealfie
Mar 19, 05:32 AM
Even though I own two iPhone 4's, I still think that it is definitely the most overrated phone ever.
Honestly if it weren't for those art and photography apps, I would have more Android/webOS phones. I really like the iPhone 4 but it isn't the end all and be all.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
Even though I own two iPhone 4's I never experienced being a meat sandwich so that survey is mostly bullshiznit.
Honestly, I don't buy the iPhone to show off but because it is a photography tool for my art studio.
Whenever an Adroid user gives me any crap, I just say one thing to them and it always shuts them up.
"battery life"
Works all the time. :D
Wrong my Motorola Defy gets just as good battery life as my iPhone 4. (I own one too) and plus I can do swimming with it.
Something that the iPhone 4 I own can't do!!!!!! :p
Peoplle hated Paris Hilton too and look how hot she was...
Paris Hilton is overrated and she isn't hot either. So there.
Honestly if it weren't for those art and photography apps, I would have more Android/webOS phones. I really like the iPhone 4 but it isn't the end all and be all.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
Even though I own two iPhone 4's I never experienced being a meat sandwich so that survey is mostly bullshiznit.
Honestly, I don't buy the iPhone to show off but because it is a photography tool for my art studio.
Whenever an Adroid user gives me any crap, I just say one thing to them and it always shuts them up.
"battery life"
Works all the time. :D
Wrong my Motorola Defy gets just as good battery life as my iPhone 4. (I own one too) and plus I can do swimming with it.
Something that the iPhone 4 I own can't do!!!!!! :p
Peoplle hated Paris Hilton too and look how hot she was...
Paris Hilton is overrated and she isn't hot either. So there.
more...
MacRumors
Mar 28, 02:09 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/28/2011-apple-design-awards-for-both-ios-and-mac-os-x-app-store-only/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/28/150719-apple_design_awards_2011.jpg
More YouTube videos About
more...
hip piercings 2
PIERCINGS.jpg Hip piercing
hip piercings
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/28/150719-apple_design_awards_2011.jpg
NorCalLights
Jan 5, 02:49 PM
It's awesome not having spoilers. I think I'll watch the keynote oldschool this year.
more...
alent1234
May 3, 01:50 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
that's their profits. texting and tethering. those of us with just the regular service barely pay the bills
same reason why the lower end imacs mbp's are not that good a buy or the GPU's are gimped on them and the $2000 model has the good GPU and 1GB of GDDR5
that's their profits. texting and tethering. those of us with just the regular service barely pay the bills
same reason why the lower end imacs mbp's are not that good a buy or the GPU's are gimped on them and the $2000 model has the good GPU and 1GB of GDDR5
lordonuthin
Jul 14, 08:21 PM
it's cable internet. the company is mediacom. it's the only cable company out here. but i guess i might have to go dsl if they don't fix it
I have Mediacom too, I'm supposed to have really fast service, it's ok most of the time but here is what cnet's speed test (http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-speed-test/) gave me.
:mad:
I have Mediacom too, I'm supposed to have really fast service, it's ok most of the time but here is what cnet's speed test (http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-speed-test/) gave me.
:mad:
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 15, 07:47 PM
That depends on the game. Everything after COD4 has had a very shallow campaign that is just boring. I only play the campaign because i find COD's online to be bland. I like MP with different classes, like TF2 or KZ2. I dont like when everyone's job is simply shooting. It gets boring really quickly for me. I played KZ2 online more than any other game because if i got tired or sniping i could go around setting up bots. If i got tired of that i could play Medic and heal the crap out of people. So many things to do whereas in COD everyone has a gun and shoots, thats all.
So i'd rather have Treyarch spend more time on the campaign than MP. Insomniac makes a game with a solid campaign every year (except this year -_-) and they are working with a tiny budget compared to the COD franchise.
So i'd rather have Treyarch spend more time on the campaign than MP. Insomniac makes a game with a solid campaign every year (except this year -_-) and they are working with a tiny budget compared to the COD franchise.
SiliconAddict
Oct 3, 03:27 PM
All I can say is whatever "top secret" features Leopard has better blow me out of my socks, threw the wall, and across my yard. As it stands. Meh.
iTV will be mine though as long as I can hook up an external HD to it to store video. If not. Pass.
iTV will be mine though as long as I can hook up an external HD to it to store video. If not. Pass.
Geckotek
Jan 2, 01:25 AM
Not saying you're correct or incorrect, just saying that the information I had been dealt doesn't support your statement. I'm fairly certain that question was settled after the first teardown.
Edit: Looked around and couldn't find a datasheet on the Triquint chips. Perhpas we never really had an answer on this. But I don't see LTE as a possibility and if HSPA+ is, why is it not enabled yet??
Well, once again, supposedly LTE will allow for simultaneous voice/data.
I for one will be staying with AT&T if and when Verizon gets the iPhone. I'll also be laughing while Verizon suffers the same fate that AT&T did as millions of users hit their network at once. I don't care how "strong" Verizon's network is, I don't think they're ready for the heavy hit they're going to take.
As of now, LTE only supports data. They are working for a voice solution in the future. So any LTE phones will be LTE for data and CDMA/WCDMA for voice.
And thinking that Verizon won't be prepared is just foolish. For starters, they have the luxury that AT&T didn't have...too look at another network and how the iPhone has performed on that network. It would be like watching a guy walk off a cliff and slam into the rocks below...then just walking off after him expecting a different result. Not to mention the fact that Verizon has handled bigger data hogs in the form of laptop users for longer than AT&T anyway.
Edit: Looked around and couldn't find a datasheet on the Triquint chips. Perhpas we never really had an answer on this. But I don't see LTE as a possibility and if HSPA+ is, why is it not enabled yet??
Well, once again, supposedly LTE will allow for simultaneous voice/data.
I for one will be staying with AT&T if and when Verizon gets the iPhone. I'll also be laughing while Verizon suffers the same fate that AT&T did as millions of users hit their network at once. I don't care how "strong" Verizon's network is, I don't think they're ready for the heavy hit they're going to take.
As of now, LTE only supports data. They are working for a voice solution in the future. So any LTE phones will be LTE for data and CDMA/WCDMA for voice.
And thinking that Verizon won't be prepared is just foolish. For starters, they have the luxury that AT&T didn't have...too look at another network and how the iPhone has performed on that network. It would be like watching a guy walk off a cliff and slam into the rocks below...then just walking off after him expecting a different result. Not to mention the fact that Verizon has handled bigger data hogs in the form of laptop users for longer than AT&T anyway.
CQd44
Apr 16, 06:41 PM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
Didn't that lady's iAd gallery app get rejected?
also, the Google Voice had problems getting out. And different browsers didn't appear for a long while I thought.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
Didn't that lady's iAd gallery app get rejected?
also, the Google Voice had problems getting out. And different browsers didn't appear for a long while I thought.
Mac.World
Apr 17, 09:47 AM
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
Sounds like a lost in translation issue. Reading comments vice talking directly with someone leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway, I read your comments as though you felt that a persons homosexual orientation entitled them to be elevated above another group or person.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
Because I am against classifying people by descriptors. The worth of a man or woman should not be defined by labels like black, gay, or what have you. Treat every man or woman equally, as you would wish to be treated, and I see no need for labels. Do you label your friends? i.e. "Hey, I'm going to see black Jim." Or, "I'm going to see Jew Bob."
Sounds like a lost in translation issue. Reading comments vice talking directly with someone leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway, I read your comments as though you felt that a persons homosexual orientation entitled them to be elevated above another group or person.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
Because I am against classifying people by descriptors. The worth of a man or woman should not be defined by labels like black, gay, or what have you. Treat every man or woman equally, as you would wish to be treated, and I see no need for labels. Do you label your friends? i.e. "Hey, I'm going to see black Jim." Or, "I'm going to see Jew Bob."
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment