Bobdude161
Mar 30, 04:36 AM
wow I'm subscribing to this thread. My first subscription. Whenever you find out who it is, make that son of a bitch bite the curb. :)
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.
Boquito17
Nov 28, 03:19 PM
Fun game, have it on PS3. A few things must be addressed though.
It does take too little killstreaks to gain really. But at least the killstreaks top out at 11 on this one, which I think makes it better.
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
Those dogs are real pains, nearly impossible to kill :P
It does take too little killstreaks to gain really. But at least the killstreaks top out at 11 on this one, which I think makes it better.
The attack dogs really do my head in though!
Those dogs are real pains, nearly impossible to kill :P
Liquorpuki
Oct 6, 02:31 PM
When I was on Verizon, I could drive from Silicon Valley down to LA and not get dropped once.
Now that I'm on AT&T, on my 40 mile drive home on the 101 from downtown LA to the West Valley, I regularly get dropped 2 to 3 times - usually at the Lankershim and Winnetka exits.
It is what it is
Now that I'm on AT&T, on my 40 mile drive home on the 101 from downtown LA to the West Valley, I regularly get dropped 2 to 3 times - usually at the Lankershim and Winnetka exits.
It is what it is
Satori
Apr 15, 04:42 PM
There are plenty of competition. Look back the history for the past 10 years. Almost all of them, including Microsoft's versions, failed against iTunes.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
twoodcc
Apr 20, 11:08 AM
Sounds like me sometimes with things not working and spending way more time than on it than I thought, hopefully you can get everything working, I think you are better at it than I am.
thanks. things aren't quite working out right at the moment. i think i might have messed up the motherboard somehow. my homebuilt i7 just isn't working right. i'm away for work during the week, but i think this coming weekend will spent on this computer again. i might have to buy another motherboard i'm thinking though
thanks. things aren't quite working out right at the moment. i think i might have messed up the motherboard somehow. my homebuilt i7 just isn't working right. i'm away for work during the week, but i think this coming weekend will spent on this computer again. i might have to buy another motherboard i'm thinking though
Belly-laughs
Oct 3, 04:26 PM
Hmm...interesting. Adding wireless capability directly to the iPod would make it more similar to the Zune. I wonder if they could add Bonjour technology to really go head-to-head. Except instead of the stupid (play 3 times) thing that the Zune has, you could actually browse and play shared playlists from other people's iPods (work exactly the same as shared playlists from iTunes now do...).
I believe the scope of a wireless iPod, or any other mass distributed wireless product, will go further than music and playlists. It�s already implemented in museums, etc. as downloadable tour guides; when you enter a town you can get your hands on local maps, local news, history; we might soon see ad boards that will allow you to download more info on products and services – there are endless possibilities.
Closer to the living room I feel iTV needs wireless communication with other Apple products; the iPod or iPhone to control it, even provide media; iPod Hi-Fi to deliver the groove.
I believe the scope of a wireless iPod, or any other mass distributed wireless product, will go further than music and playlists. It�s already implemented in museums, etc. as downloadable tour guides; when you enter a town you can get your hands on local maps, local news, history; we might soon see ad boards that will allow you to download more info on products and services – there are endless possibilities.
Closer to the living room I feel iTV needs wireless communication with other Apple products; the iPod or iPhone to control it, even provide media; iPod Hi-Fi to deliver the groove.
Ryeno
May 3, 05:11 PM
Just like communism
i love it when people say stuff, i mean type stuff, without thinking.
android being free and open is more comparable to a capitalist system which ironically also doesn't work out too well in real life.
i love it when people say stuff, i mean type stuff, without thinking.
android being free and open is more comparable to a capitalist system which ironically also doesn't work out too well in real life.
VideoFreek
May 4, 03:37 PM
Why does a question about a potentially dangerous object and your provisions for its safe keeping threaten you? The doctor is not playing politics, hes practicing good preventative medicine.Sorry, during which year of medical school do doctors receive gun safety training? How many hours of coursework on home safety do they complete? The typical MD is no more qualified to discuss these matters than any bozo on the street with more than an ounce of common sense. If they really want to help their patients child-proof their homes effectively, providing a helpful checklist would far more effective than interrogating parents.
linked.account
Apr 29, 04:28 PM
Please also replace those crappy black white icons with colored ones.What is wrong with colors? Is lion color-alergic??
xlosltove777
Nov 24, 12:14 AM
The store seems up, with no changes...
skunk
Apr 21, 12:12 PM
Exactly.Very inexactly. The Arabs invented 0 some time ago. The system is borked.
bj3949
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
Probably not real. I really hope the next iPhone has a camera flash, and I think the camera flash should be the Apple logo on the back. Wouldn't that be sick????
todd2000
Oct 2, 03:06 PM
So Apple will figure out a way to block it, and just Sue him
JackSYi
Oct 4, 02:14 PM
Thank god. My first MWSF (been saving up for it), with the primary reason being: Steve Jobs.
coder12
Apr 25, 03:11 PM
iPhone nano mock-up?
Image (http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg)
Nope, that's the new iPod touch ;)
Image (http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg)
Nope, that's the new iPod touch ;)
KnightWRX
Apr 29, 04:59 PM
Sensible defaults. Usability before looks. The iOS scrollbars might look better but they remove usability. Same with the slider, it's not as intuitive.
Apple should not break intuitiveness and usability just to change some esthetics, especially if this is just change for the same of change.
Apple should not break intuitiveness and usability just to change some esthetics, especially if this is just change for the same of change.
rdowns
Jan 12, 04:36 AM
is there anything other than the fact there's "200 new patents" (where did you get this anyway?) that you find revolutionary about iPhone?
Here you go.
Here you go.
iShater
Jul 28, 01:44 PM
The Audi A3 clean diesel TDI
It is not a hybrid drive train that uses diesel with an electric, it is a pure diesel car.
It is not a hybrid drive train that uses diesel with an electric, it is a pure diesel car.
redalpha
Sep 12, 08:59 AM
http://www.apple.com/nl/quicktime/mac.html
Left Bottom (Itunes Videos)
iTunes-video's
Transporter 2Transporter 2
20th Century Fox
Red EyeRed Eye
Dreamworks S.K.G.
World of Warcraft Burning CrusadeWorld of Warcraft Burning Crusade
Enigmo2Enigmo 2
Left Bottom (Itunes Videos)
iTunes-video's
Transporter 2Transporter 2
20th Century Fox
Red EyeRed Eye
Dreamworks S.K.G.
World of Warcraft Burning CrusadeWorld of Warcraft Burning Crusade
Enigmo2Enigmo 2
DrumApple
Apr 25, 02:23 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.
Yeah, making developers have to re-develop all of their apps would be a knife to the heart. When Apple decided on the screen size, it was pretty much set in stone. This would be a terrible move and anger many developers, especially independents who don't have the time, resources, or budget to re-develop. I could have blown my life savings developing one app, and now to find out that it isn't compatible with the newest iphone anymore? /die
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.
Yeah, making developers have to re-develop all of their apps would be a knife to the heart. When Apple decided on the screen size, it was pretty much set in stone. This would be a terrible move and anger many developers, especially independents who don't have the time, resources, or budget to re-develop. I could have blown my life savings developing one app, and now to find out that it isn't compatible with the newest iphone anymore? /die
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 12, 07:19 AM
Aint it a bit early for that. With 5 hours to go before the event:confused: :confused:
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 07:57 AM
through mac rumors of course...
iLounge is also covering the event.
iLounge is also covering the event.
TheNewDude
Sep 28, 12:03 PM
Oh i'm sure there will be LOTS of technology in the house.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
No comments:
Post a Comment