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.
Sesshi
Oct 10, 03:41 PM
I doubt it'll be necessary, given the Pavlovian nature of most failed wannabe tech journalists - aka bloggers for Engadget and Gizmodo, and staff writers for Computerworld for starters - to drool on command when Apple is mentioned
Ommid
Apr 25, 11:53 AM
3.7" is the most appropriate phone size imo. I use htc trophy 7 which is 3.8" and it's just a bit bigger. 3.5" is a bit small though.
Anything greater than 3.8" is a giant screen. Can't imagine using one of those.
I think the iPhone needs a bigger screen, and to lose that border would be nice
Anything greater than 3.8" is a giant screen. Can't imagine using one of those.
I think the iPhone needs a bigger screen, and to lose that border would be nice
LightSpeed1
Mar 25, 12:07 AM
Happy Belated Birthday OS X.
starflyer
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
He didn't say everyone who cries foul is a hater.
He didn't say everyone who cries foul is a hater.
rhett7660
Apr 21, 11:22 AM
This is too funny. I can see this counter thing is going to be fun to watch. I have seen the counters go from 2 to -3 to 1 to 0 to -1 with in minutes.
John Purple
Jan 15, 04:37 PM
SJ announced 4 m iPhones sold. I believe I read some days ago that 5 m have been expected??
Maybe I'm wrong. But if not, we learned today that iPhone and Apple TV aren't doing well. Apple should refocus on their core business before to many Mac customers leave disappointed.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if not, we learned today that iPhone and Apple TV aren't doing well. Apple should refocus on their core business before to many Mac customers leave disappointed.
rdowns
Dec 14, 02:23 PM
But the fact remains how are they going to exactly implement two separate phones for carriers that use different cell tech, and implement them properly
Exactly why you won't see a Verizon phone until Apple decides to adopt a chip that handles GSM and CDMA/LTE. One phone for both (all?) US carriers.
Exactly why you won't see a Verizon phone until Apple decides to adopt a chip that handles GSM and CDMA/LTE. One phone for both (all?) US carriers.
Platform
Sep 26, 07:36 AM
Great news, now put the update up on the server...I want it :D
Appel
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
Looks like ****.
fivepoint
May 5, 01:48 PM
That would be neat, rat- if any of the examples you gave were health hazards. They aren't. Guns can be. And your health is your doctor's business. My doctor asks me about all kinds of things I do and activities I engage in to give me advice regarding them. Health is your doctor's business.
I don't know, being a farmer/rancher is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Certainly living on a farm makes you considerably more likely to sustain injury or death during every day interaction on the farm. Kids get run over by tractors, wound up in PTO shafts, etc. all the time. As with anything in life, reward often brings risk. I'd say asking about living on a farm is very similar to asking about guns in the house. Both should be perfectly legal for the physician to ask about, but common sense and general courtesy would suggest that the physician should stick to more physiology related questioning.
I don't know, being a farmer/rancher is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Certainly living on a farm makes you considerably more likely to sustain injury or death during every day interaction on the farm. Kids get run over by tractors, wound up in PTO shafts, etc. all the time. As with anything in life, reward often brings risk. I'd say asking about living on a farm is very similar to asking about guns in the house. Both should be perfectly legal for the physician to ask about, but common sense and general courtesy would suggest that the physician should stick to more physiology related questioning.
spillproof
Oct 6, 12:29 PM
Getting back to the actual advertisement. What self-respecting advertising professional would use someone else's tagline like that.
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
I disagree. It is a satirical and pokes fun of AT&T and Apple while giving facts. It gets you to think, which is the goal of an advertisement.
I like this commercial and hope it makes AT&T a little more scared that they are failing. (Or I could be bias for my love of satires and dislike for AT&T :cool:)
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
Just one?
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
I disagree. It is a satirical and pokes fun of AT&T and Apple while giving facts. It gets you to think, which is the goal of an advertisement.
I like this commercial and hope it makes AT&T a little more scared that they are failing. (Or I could be bias for my love of satires and dislike for AT&T :cool:)
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
Just one?
MattQiu
Jan 9, 04:41 PM
apple has posted the keynote, but the link doesn't work
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/
edit: it's working now
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/
edit: it's working now
gauchogolfer
Sep 25, 11:39 AM
I'm pretty happy that my 15" Powerbook is officially supported to run Aperture now. They must have reduced the system requirements, which might bode well for those of you with faster machines in terms of program performance and speed.
Cheers
Cheers
hatersgonnahate
Apr 13, 04:40 PM
Sure thing.What made you choose the samson's over the swans?
usb connection.
ipod dock. and 3.5mm out.
the swans look a lot nicer though.:p
usb connection.
ipod dock. and 3.5mm out.
the swans look a lot nicer though.:p
JKK photography
Apr 12, 06:48 AM
That's not entirely true. When you buy a new mac you get iLife, with a new PC, you get office, windows live suite (ilife competitor), other apps including anti-virus. So you can't say that "ou can't do absolutely anything with Windows out of the box without downloading extra software."
You get the same or similar level of functionality when buying a new computer. Apple gives you iLife, PCs you get office, and other stuff.
You get trials. Not actual copies, unless you pay for the license.
There is a big difference there.
You get the same or similar level of functionality when buying a new computer. Apple gives you iLife, PCs you get office, and other stuff.
You get trials. Not actual copies, unless you pay for the license.
There is a big difference there.
utgerger
Jan 11, 02:56 PM
Since you seem quite confident about what might be announced next Tuesday I wonder if you know anything about a possible iPhone "2.0" - the next generation iPhone with 3G, GPS, 16/32GB, MMS, etc.?
As for the MacBook Pros: Do you know what this facelift might look like? Minor or major facelift?
Thanks ,
Sandrotto (that was my first post on this forum btw :-D )
MWSF won't be about a new iPhone.. its all about its current success, about its deployment into new markets and most importantly, the eminent release of its SDK.. from what I know, major iPhone update will happen sometime down the road.. maybe summer.. :confused:
MacBooks just got updated last november.. internals stay the same.. some cosmetic changes will happen otherwise it will look radically out of the Apple 2008 line..
MacBook Pros will definitely get a facelift.. Aluminum is definitely in along with the new keyboard.. but that's stuff we all know.. i don't have solid details on the pro line but its definitely slimmer with major black infusions.. (iMac)
it will basically be the big brother of MacBook Lite.. :)
ooops.. did i just spill something? something is definitely up in the air..
As for the MacBook Pros: Do you know what this facelift might look like? Minor or major facelift?
Thanks ,
Sandrotto (that was my first post on this forum btw :-D )
MWSF won't be about a new iPhone.. its all about its current success, about its deployment into new markets and most importantly, the eminent release of its SDK.. from what I know, major iPhone update will happen sometime down the road.. maybe summer.. :confused:
MacBooks just got updated last november.. internals stay the same.. some cosmetic changes will happen otherwise it will look radically out of the Apple 2008 line..
MacBook Pros will definitely get a facelift.. Aluminum is definitely in along with the new keyboard.. but that's stuff we all know.. i don't have solid details on the pro line but its definitely slimmer with major black infusions.. (iMac)
it will basically be the big brother of MacBook Lite.. :)
ooops.. did i just spill something? something is definitely up in the air..
psycoswimmer
Jan 9, 07:13 PM
Just finished watch the keynote. It did seem shorter than (about) 2 hours. I read about the products and everything at apple.com before, but wow, watching the keynote makes a big difference. You get to really see everything in action, and you'll learn more than you will on apple's site.
KingYaba
Mar 3, 09:02 PM
Fines and jail time? What a crock of ****. Negotiate, by all means, if the union pay needs to be cut back to balance a state budget, but this bill goes too far.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to peacefully assemble....
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to peacefully assemble....
valdore
Jan 12, 06:30 PM
One could also say that Google never came up with anything truly original; they just took existing concepts and improved them, then released them under their own name.
Ziger Woods
Apr 25, 11:46 AM
I hope this is tha new 4S or whatever they call it!? It will b a nice upgrade from my almost unbearable 3G!!!
anjinha
Apr 21, 11:10 AM
All you'll do is make people paranoid. Who were those two bastards who voted down rdowns' post?
I'm trying to vote it up but it's not working!!
EDIT: Nevermind, it worked now.
I'm trying to vote it up but it's not working!!
EDIT: Nevermind, it worked now.
Detlev
Mar 28, 03:42 PM
Ooh the arguments are getting heated up in this thread :D
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
Nice. You've been waiting to use that, haven't you?
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
Nice. You've been waiting to use that, haven't you?
m-dogg
Jan 5, 04:06 PM
This is a great idea for those that would like this option. MR rocks as always!
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p