johndallas999
Apr 25, 01:34 PM
I don't get the fascination with a marginal bigger screen, if I need a bigger screen I get my iPad.
It's just a preference thing. I don't think it's the way everyone feels but that's like saying, I don't understand why people think 3.5" screen is plenty. People have different tastes/opinions. I would certainly prefer a larger screen if the phone size can be kept the same size.
It's just a preference thing. I don't think it's the way everyone feels but that's like saying, I don't understand why people think 3.5" screen is plenty. People have different tastes/opinions. I would certainly prefer a larger screen if the phone size can be kept the same size.
alexprice
Jan 9, 04:28 PM
How long does it usually take before they post the stream? I'm dying to watch it!
"Good things come to those who wait"
I won't give any info, but for those waiting to see it and don't know anything about whats been shown.... its all really cool.
"Good things come to those who wait"
I won't give any info, but for those waiting to see it and don't know anything about whats been shown.... its all really cool.
bdj21ya
Oct 3, 12:43 PM
but I'm always convinced by ol' Steve that I'l
Aaron was suddenly whacked by the iLife secret police for even intimating that purchasing yearly upgrades might not be worth it:D
Aaron was suddenly whacked by the iLife secret police for even intimating that purchasing yearly upgrades might not be worth it:D
macintel4me
Oct 11, 03:11 AM
First, I'm not sure what kind of wireless is being discussed here. Wireless earphones? wireless docking stationg? wireless internet connectivity? wireless ipod-to-ipod connectivity?
Second, the battery drain on a widescreen video iPod doing some wireless connectivity would be immense. I just can't see how it would last much longer than 1 movie.
Third, I want a wireless earphone setup for running so I don't care about the video!!!!
Second, the battery drain on a widescreen video iPod doing some wireless connectivity would be immense. I just can't see how it would last much longer than 1 movie.
Third, I want a wireless earphone setup for running so I don't care about the video!!!!
the-oz-man
Oct 6, 10:45 AM
Love this commercial! AT&T get a clue from your competition. Your 3G coverage sucks!
CaoCao
Apr 15, 08:07 PM
What's CST? I honestly have no idea. Actually, the entire sentence is confusing, could you clarify?
There is not enough time to cover all the material on the California Standardized Test (CST), this week we crammed (American Studies) on WWII to get it covered before the CST in two weeks (26th). Best part is that plenty of the material is on civil rights+cold war.
There is not enough time to cover all the material on the California Standardized Test (CST), this week we crammed (American Studies) on WWII to get it covered before the CST in two weeks (26th). Best part is that plenty of the material is on civil rights+cold war.
milo
Oct 3, 06:02 PM
Okay, you've got me. Pirating stuff is fun and nobody will ever get to you. And if they do it's still fun since you don't get a criminal record. And if you got one then it would be totally unfair. Man, I am a total idiot for even considering to buy stuff. You know, pay money for it.
Don't put words in our mouths. If you're going to make the moral argument against piracy, make it. I just don't agree with trying to fearmonger by saying that the feds are going to bust your door down and impound your hard drives.
Don't confuse condoning piracy with pointing out incorrect statements.
Don't put words in our mouths. If you're going to make the moral argument against piracy, make it. I just don't agree with trying to fearmonger by saying that the feds are going to bust your door down and impound your hard drives.
Don't confuse condoning piracy with pointing out incorrect statements.
macenforcer
Oct 10, 10:49 PM
The wireless will be used to buy music right from itunes. I can't wait.
saving107
May 2, 09:48 AM
Any word on whether there'll be an update for iPhone 3G users? The highest version of iOS they can use currently is 4.2.1, which presumably has the location cache problems too?
just like the original iPhone that got left behind on iOS 3.1.3, your done and if you want to continue to get the newest updates, upgrade your phone.
just like the original iPhone that got left behind on iOS 3.1.3, your done and if you want to continue to get the newest updates, upgrade your phone.
OdduWon
Oct 11, 03:37 AM
this is the new wireless protable speaker set from apple. isound. use new wirless ipod cinema, or through dock wireless adapter for 5g ipods and gen 2 nanos , to control the speakers while you move about freely with no wires attatched. isound bringing your music to you with out limits.
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/isound.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/isound.jpg
dalvin200
Sep 12, 07:40 AM
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
yeah, but there is a link in your itunes software (client) which has "Music Store" - u know.. down the left side where your playlists are..
Wouldn't they need to change that to a generic "Store" or something..
yeah, but there is a link in your itunes software (client) which has "Music Store" - u know.. down the left side where your playlists are..
Wouldn't they need to change that to a generic "Store" or something..
%252C%2Bher%2)
MathiasMag
Jul 21, 11:56 AM
The slow pace of messages here shows that this has gone from being important to the masses and the trolls to now be a small problem. Previous threads (those from before the videos and pressconference) added three pages in the time it took to read one, there was just no way to keep up with them. This has still not gotten much over 50.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
err404
May 2, 01:25 PM
Isn't it interesting how a seemingly intentional act (active user tracking) changes to a "bug" once it's existence is published in the news media? :D
Not again... The database in question is NOT used by Apple to actively track users. It's a local cache on your phone, sent to you from Apple. This database serves a legitimate purpose on your phone to improve the performance of location services.
The issue is that this DB can be used by others (not Apple) to gain in-site into your relative location over time. Technically I wouldn't even call this a 'bug' since it's working as designed. However it is a serious oversight on Apples part.
FTR - Apple does collect location data from your phone (assuming you opted-in). This tracking is done via entirely different process than is being discussed.
Not again... The database in question is NOT used by Apple to actively track users. It's a local cache on your phone, sent to you from Apple. This database serves a legitimate purpose on your phone to improve the performance of location services.
The issue is that this DB can be used by others (not Apple) to gain in-site into your relative location over time. Technically I wouldn't even call this a 'bug' since it's working as designed. However it is a serious oversight on Apples part.
FTR - Apple does collect location data from your phone (assuming you opted-in). This tracking is done via entirely different process than is being discussed.
satcomer
Apr 12, 03:59 PM
A cool poster:
http://astrogear.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/UniverseKills-gray1.png
link: Astrogear poster (http://astrogear.org/posters/poster-the-universe-is-trying-to-kill-you/)
http://astrogear.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/UniverseKills-gray1.png
link: Astrogear poster (http://astrogear.org/posters/poster-the-universe-is-trying-to-kill-you/)
maflynn
Apr 12, 08:25 AM
Retail purchasing (which is how a LOT of people buy computers) for Office 2010 is: You now get what's called "Office 2010 Starter (http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/products/office/pages/office_2010_starter.aspx)" - Word & Excel. Both are no longer time-limited, BUT are now feature-limited and ad-supported (ads rotate every 45 seconds.) You no longer get Powerpoint at all, and of course they aren't gonna give you Outlook for free (that's what makes you upgrade from "Home & Student" to "Home & Business" or "Professional".)
The image below is directly out of Microsoft's retail training, where they tell you explicitly that Office does NOT come pre-loaded (but customers assume it does.)
So office starter has ads in it - ewww :eek:. I didn't know that. I'll be sure to avoid that edition if I'm in need of MS office running in windows.
The image below is directly out of Microsoft's retail training, where they tell you explicitly that Office does NOT come pre-loaded (but customers assume it does.)
So office starter has ads in it - ewww :eek:. I didn't know that. I'll be sure to avoid that edition if I'm in need of MS office running in windows.
MacRumors
Oct 3, 12:15 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Coming as little surprise to veteran Apple watchers, IDG World Expo announced on Tuesday that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would deliver the opening keynote address (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/03/jobs/index.php) at Macworld Expo San Francisco. The expo will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Convention Center from January 8-12, with the keynote on Tuesday January 9th at 9 am Pacific at Moscone West.
Last year's keynote brought software updates including iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110141828.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142618.shtml) 06 and Mac OS X 10.4.4 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110180240.shtml). Also, the first Intel Macs were announced 6 months early in the form of the iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142730.shtml) and MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142811.shtml).
While still early, this year's expectations have already begun to gain steam, with obvious expectations of iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802125923.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060717122553.shtml) updates as well as the formal launch of the "iTV". Also possible is Apple's long-awaited phone and similarly long-awaited "true" video iPod, although both products have seen several setbacks. Lastly, with OS 10.5 Leopard's release around the corner, Jobs will undoubtedly take the opportunity to highlight some already announced (and perhaps some remaining "top-secret") features of the new operating system.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_To_Keynote_Macworld_San_Francisco_2007)
Coming as little surprise to veteran Apple watchers, IDG World Expo announced on Tuesday that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would deliver the opening keynote address (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/03/jobs/index.php) at Macworld Expo San Francisco. The expo will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Convention Center from January 8-12, with the keynote on Tuesday January 9th at 9 am Pacific at Moscone West.
Last year's keynote brought software updates including iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110141828.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142618.shtml) 06 and Mac OS X 10.4.4 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110180240.shtml). Also, the first Intel Macs were announced 6 months early in the form of the iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142730.shtml) and MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142811.shtml).
While still early, this year's expectations have already begun to gain steam, with obvious expectations of iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802125923.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060717122553.shtml) updates as well as the formal launch of the "iTV". Also possible is Apple's long-awaited phone and similarly long-awaited "true" video iPod, although both products have seen several setbacks. Lastly, with OS 10.5 Leopard's release around the corner, Jobs will undoubtedly take the opportunity to highlight some already announced (and perhaps some remaining "top-secret") features of the new operating system.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_To_Keynote_Macworld_San_Francisco_2007)
hulugu
Mar 3, 10:45 PM
...
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining....
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)[/QUOTE]
It's interesting, AFAICT, the courts have mainly avoided creating a 'right' to collective bargaining and have remaindered this structure to legislative acts like the NLRB.
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
A conflict of interest? I disagree, this is akin to being on the hiring committee for your boss�a common corporate and university structure. Extend the logic of this and you're effectively arguing that no public employee, from police officer to NHS doctor should be able to vote.
What's important about the conflict in a conflict of interest is whether or not the union's interest runs counter to the government's, which is at the very least arguable.
Lee, my wife is a teacher. I'm quite aware of how much they make. For the record, they aren't required to have masters degrees (where do you get this stuff?). Most importantly, without thuggish unions, good teachers like my wife would make far more money than they do today, while the bad ones would make less or be fired.
How? Without the union, bad teachers would presumably be fired, but how would this raise wages directly or indirectly?
Have you seen the movie 'Waiting for Superman' by chance, Lee?
Many have argued that this is a piece of agitprop and is not a fair documentary.
Bill Gates accurately pointed out the failure of allowing the unionization of public employees and the incredible damage it's causing our state budgets. Thankfully, people like him are willing to look at the facts and report honestly on the situation instead of pretending like the government can produce miracles out of thin air or that money grows on trees.
I'm not so sure you should declare the genius of Gates on a Mac forum. ;)
Are you aware of the number of school districts that have unions and those that do not and what the test scores for ACT/SAT are? I'm wondering if there's at least a correlative connection between the two. Adding in the variable of education spending might also be useful.
Might have to go to mass media complete.
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining....
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)[/QUOTE]
It's interesting, AFAICT, the courts have mainly avoided creating a 'right' to collective bargaining and have remaindered this structure to legislative acts like the NLRB.
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
A conflict of interest? I disagree, this is akin to being on the hiring committee for your boss�a common corporate and university structure. Extend the logic of this and you're effectively arguing that no public employee, from police officer to NHS doctor should be able to vote.
What's important about the conflict in a conflict of interest is whether or not the union's interest runs counter to the government's, which is at the very least arguable.
Lee, my wife is a teacher. I'm quite aware of how much they make. For the record, they aren't required to have masters degrees (where do you get this stuff?). Most importantly, without thuggish unions, good teachers like my wife would make far more money than they do today, while the bad ones would make less or be fired.
How? Without the union, bad teachers would presumably be fired, but how would this raise wages directly or indirectly?
Have you seen the movie 'Waiting for Superman' by chance, Lee?
Many have argued that this is a piece of agitprop and is not a fair documentary.
Bill Gates accurately pointed out the failure of allowing the unionization of public employees and the incredible damage it's causing our state budgets. Thankfully, people like him are willing to look at the facts and report honestly on the situation instead of pretending like the government can produce miracles out of thin air or that money grows on trees.
I'm not so sure you should declare the genius of Gates on a Mac forum. ;)
Are you aware of the number of school districts that have unions and those that do not and what the test scores for ACT/SAT are? I'm wondering if there's at least a correlative connection between the two. Adding in the variable of education spending might also be useful.
Might have to go to mass media complete.
firestarter
Apr 22, 02:06 PM
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
No, moderation becomes distributed amongst all members. Have a look at Slashdot - they developed the system there to manage their large number of comments.
If you gain a lot of positive ratings on your own posts, you get 'kudos' points.
Kudos score means you're invited to 'meta moderate' that is, to judge whether others are rating comments fairly or not. This removes the problem of people unfairly trying to bury or promote based on personal reasons, since meta-moderation helps reduce the weighting of trollish raters.
It seems to work well, producing a self-moderating environment where you can easily filter thread comments to quickly read the best posts.
The problem with the system MR appears to be building is that all ratings appear to have the same weight, whether coming from a respected forum member or a troll.
Possible ways to fix this might be:
- meta moderation
- preventing the frequency that you can vote up/down a certain individual
- weight votes based on some other measure of goodness
- reduce weighting based on warnings/time-outs etc.
No, moderation becomes distributed amongst all members. Have a look at Slashdot - they developed the system there to manage their large number of comments.
If you gain a lot of positive ratings on your own posts, you get 'kudos' points.
Kudos score means you're invited to 'meta moderate' that is, to judge whether others are rating comments fairly or not. This removes the problem of people unfairly trying to bury or promote based on personal reasons, since meta-moderation helps reduce the weighting of trollish raters.
It seems to work well, producing a self-moderating environment where you can easily filter thread comments to quickly read the best posts.
The problem with the system MR appears to be building is that all ratings appear to have the same weight, whether coming from a respected forum member or a troll.
Possible ways to fix this might be:
- meta moderation
- preventing the frequency that you can vote up/down a certain individual
- weight votes based on some other measure of goodness
- reduce weighting based on warnings/time-outs etc.
patrick0brien
Aug 6, 02:49 PM
I would normally not consider purchasing a GM vehicle, but the Volt looks really good.
The U.S. can build cars just as good as the best of the rest of the world, but only when we want to - which is a shame, because we historically haven't wanted to.
The U.S. can build cars just as good as the best of the rest of the world, but only when we want to - which is a shame, because we historically haven't wanted to.
Cassie
Jan 8, 08:30 PM
What are your predictions for this years MacWorld?
-hh
Oct 19, 10:16 AM
The market share (and Princeton report) are favorable news for the Mac platform and for Apple.
But it is interesting to read this from Gartner, in the light that this very same Company is also in the news right now for their "Macs should be made by Dell" splash (actual paper was "Apple Should License the Mac to Dell")
In conjunction with this articles observation that Dell's PC marketshare has been sliding (lost worldwide #1 to HP, etc), along with business reports that aren't rosey on Dell's margins (nor their get well plan, which isn't working), the newsfolk who picked up on Gartner really got their headline wrong. It really should have been IMO:
"Dell sliding bad - needs rescue in form of Mac licence from Apple".
In said report (the other one, not this one) Gartner suggested that 'Apple should concentrate on what it does best - create software - and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure.' In this report, there's not a peep of such 'black clouds on the horizon' for Apple ... must be two different guys in the Gartner shop :)
Quite interesting, since the bottom line right now is that the Mac Pro is known to be less expensive than the Dell equivalent, for what does that suggest about expertise in cutting deals with Intel, and efficiently running production & distrubution?
The reality is that Apple generally contracts out much of their manufacturing, true. However, so does Dell. As such, why should Apple bother to pay to go through Dell? That's called using a "Middle Man" and this intermediate step would increase costs, which would then either lower Apple's unit profits, or force them to raise prices ... which hearkens the 'Macs cost more' paradigm.
This is why Gartner's suggestion seems to be more aimed to help Dell through their current fiscal troubles but does not help Apple in any meaningful way at this time.
Perhaps Apple will need Dell for access to Dell's assemblers, but that would only occur when Apple's total market share gets huge - say exceeds 33%. Barring a Vista-catastrophy, at the current rate of market share growth, we're still more than a year or two away from having to cross that bridge, which ironically gives Michael Dell plenty of time to become more retrospective and apologetic about inflammatory comments he has made of Apple in the past.
-hh
PS: if you look more closely at Apple's 3Q numbers, you'll see that desktop sales were relatively flat: the growth was in laptops.
But it is interesting to read this from Gartner, in the light that this very same Company is also in the news right now for their "Macs should be made by Dell" splash (actual paper was "Apple Should License the Mac to Dell")
In conjunction with this articles observation that Dell's PC marketshare has been sliding (lost worldwide #1 to HP, etc), along with business reports that aren't rosey on Dell's margins (nor their get well plan, which isn't working), the newsfolk who picked up on Gartner really got their headline wrong. It really should have been IMO:
"Dell sliding bad - needs rescue in form of Mac licence from Apple".
In said report (the other one, not this one) Gartner suggested that 'Apple should concentrate on what it does best - create software - and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure.' In this report, there's not a peep of such 'black clouds on the horizon' for Apple ... must be two different guys in the Gartner shop :)
Quite interesting, since the bottom line right now is that the Mac Pro is known to be less expensive than the Dell equivalent, for what does that suggest about expertise in cutting deals with Intel, and efficiently running production & distrubution?
The reality is that Apple generally contracts out much of their manufacturing, true. However, so does Dell. As such, why should Apple bother to pay to go through Dell? That's called using a "Middle Man" and this intermediate step would increase costs, which would then either lower Apple's unit profits, or force them to raise prices ... which hearkens the 'Macs cost more' paradigm.
This is why Gartner's suggestion seems to be more aimed to help Dell through their current fiscal troubles but does not help Apple in any meaningful way at this time.
Perhaps Apple will need Dell for access to Dell's assemblers, but that would only occur when Apple's total market share gets huge - say exceeds 33%. Barring a Vista-catastrophy, at the current rate of market share growth, we're still more than a year or two away from having to cross that bridge, which ironically gives Michael Dell plenty of time to become more retrospective and apologetic about inflammatory comments he has made of Apple in the past.
-hh
PS: if you look more closely at Apple's 3Q numbers, you'll see that desktop sales were relatively flat: the growth was in laptops.
Starship77
Apr 15, 03:34 PM
Actually, shooting up close with a wide-angle lens will give you exactly that distortion. Here is a photo I just took of a REAL iPhone with a 17mm lens. Sorry about the fuzziness - handheld and did not use a flash:
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little too easy though... ;)
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little too easy though... ;)
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
Aperture
Apr 3, 11:23 PM
I would try calling XBL support and asking for their supervisor, and that person's supervisor, & so on. Explain to them, (stay firm on your point) the reason you need it and what you can do with it. If you need to, I would mention you are in the process of obtaining a warrant for the IP. As you already know, them not knowing the IP is complete and utter BS.
No comments:
Post a Comment