ConnorCG
Apr 29, 01:11 PM
The power of Mac OS X. The magic of iPad.
Oh god...
Oh god...
samiwas
Mar 5, 10:38 AM
Now: corporate contributions are legal money laundering operations. If you follow the money, I pay for goods which go into company funds which are used to contribute to buy Republican candidates who are dedicated to passing corporate-friendly laws that make my air dirtier and my food unhealthier, and that lower my standard of living until they finally ship my job to another country. Nice racket they have going. Has anybody ever noticed that the well never dries of money to buy off our government? I just love watching them cry about regulation; very classy.
Almost took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone who doesn't realize the hypocrisy in the original statement has their head in the sand.
Almost took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone who doesn't realize the hypocrisy in the original statement has their head in the sand.
semaja2
Oct 29, 01:08 AM
Say good bye to programs like InsomniaX/Sleepless and other hacks.
I mention the two first apps because they were relying on the 10.4.8 source code to see what has broken the software from 10.4.7
I mention the two first apps because they were relying on the 10.4.8 source code to see what has broken the software from 10.4.7
Macaddicttt
Mar 4, 11:54 AM
Ooops...
GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/GOP-Unprecedented-Lead-Generic-Ballot.aspx)
Republicans also maintain wide gap in enthusiasm about voting
PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/4nitz4hkueaj85zreale-w.gif
No one, no one would take a poll that's seven-months out-of-date and try and pass it off as an accurate representation of current public opinion.
GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/GOP-Unprecedented-Lead-Generic-Ballot.aspx)
Republicans also maintain wide gap in enthusiasm about voting
PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/4nitz4hkueaj85zreale-w.gif
No one, no one would take a poll that's seven-months out-of-date and try and pass it off as an accurate representation of current public opinion.
Dr Kevorkian94
Dec 13, 02:07 PM
Y would they make a verizon iPhone before July when they come out with a new one anyway. It's stupid I'm shure that they will come out with one when they always come out with them in JULY. They will make more money (maybe) if they do what they always do, unless apple is becoming like the driods and make a new one every month. Whatever the case may be this verizon rumor is getting pushed back and back
axual
Apr 25, 03:50 PM
This is not an iPhone 4 case ...
Meanee
Mar 17, 12:28 PM
Nice. Too bad some kid is going to have $300 docked from his pay...
I believe labor laws say that this is illegal, he won't have to reimburse the store. Don't think they will flat out fire him, but it's a "one more time you are missing even a cent, your ass it outta here" type of deal. If he ever made a mistake in past, they can give him the boot as well. Best Buy is not corner drug store. The pinch of losing 300 bucks for them is not as bad. But the kid might easily be out of the job very soon.
I believe labor laws say that this is illegal, he won't have to reimburse the store. Don't think they will flat out fire him, but it's a "one more time you are missing even a cent, your ass it outta here" type of deal. If he ever made a mistake in past, they can give him the boot as well. Best Buy is not corner drug store. The pinch of losing 300 bucks for them is not as bad. But the kid might easily be out of the job very soon.
BongoBanger
Apr 11, 03:18 AM
It was funny. Stop crying.
ct2k7
Apr 16, 10:19 AM
Ok, Mr. Intelligent. It's been 3 years since the original iPhone launched. Perhaps Apple found a way to make a phone out of aluminum or a similar material, without affecting performance? Also, the iPad is made out of aluminum, yet it uses 3G service. You're acting like you know for sure what will happen, and you don't. None of us do.
The iPad has a black strip if you hadn't noticed, much like the original iPhone.
The iPad has a black strip if you hadn't noticed, much like the original iPhone.
TEG
Mar 24, 03:26 PM
OS X was unique when it was released, Apple did not include it with systems until June and it wasn't the default boot until almost a year later.
I was given a PowerBook G4 500 when I graduated from High School, when we went to pick it up, the salesmen were surprised that it came with OS X, and doubled RAM at no extra cost. I didn't install OS X the first time until July, shortly after I arrived at college. I enjoyed many aspects of the system, except for the inability to run games like Sim City 3000 in Classic Mode, and issues related to attaching TVs via the SVideo connector, not to mention the lack of a DVD player. Between July and the release of 10.1 in September/October, I'd actually had to have my system sent back to Apple 3 times due to screen/Video Card issues. Each time, when they reformatted the hard drive and installed OS X they did it a different time. The first time both OS X and OS9 were on the same partition, in the second, they were separate, and the third, they were separate, and there was another partition for data. After the third time, I reformatted again, and followed the recommended procedure to install OS X and OS 9, including installing OS X first, then installing OS 9 as a New OS. After 10.1 came out, I began booting into OS 9 less and less, until after 10.5 came out, and I was stuck on Tiger, I actually loaded OS 9 onto my iPod and would boot of of it when I needed. Now, there are only two or three things I could think of still wanting OS 9 for, like SC2K or Myst, but nothing that makes or breaks the system. Now that I'm on a machine that runs Leopard, and I don't have the option, and I don't miss it.
I just hope that 10.7 doesn't take us cold turkey away from PPC, a bit faster than we would like.
TEG
I was given a PowerBook G4 500 when I graduated from High School, when we went to pick it up, the salesmen were surprised that it came with OS X, and doubled RAM at no extra cost. I didn't install OS X the first time until July, shortly after I arrived at college. I enjoyed many aspects of the system, except for the inability to run games like Sim City 3000 in Classic Mode, and issues related to attaching TVs via the SVideo connector, not to mention the lack of a DVD player. Between July and the release of 10.1 in September/October, I'd actually had to have my system sent back to Apple 3 times due to screen/Video Card issues. Each time, when they reformatted the hard drive and installed OS X they did it a different time. The first time both OS X and OS9 were on the same partition, in the second, they were separate, and the third, they were separate, and there was another partition for data. After the third time, I reformatted again, and followed the recommended procedure to install OS X and OS 9, including installing OS X first, then installing OS 9 as a New OS. After 10.1 came out, I began booting into OS 9 less and less, until after 10.5 came out, and I was stuck on Tiger, I actually loaded OS 9 onto my iPod and would boot of of it when I needed. Now, there are only two or three things I could think of still wanting OS 9 for, like SC2K or Myst, but nothing that makes or breaks the system. Now that I'm on a machine that runs Leopard, and I don't have the option, and I don't miss it.
I just hope that 10.7 doesn't take us cold turkey away from PPC, a bit faster than we would like.
TEG
alent1234
Apr 8, 02:03 PM
Probably in the form of "bundles" where you're required to buy an iPad with their special accessory packs just so they can push overpriced accessories out of the door.
and don't forget the yearly cleaning that's a $199 value
and don't forget the yearly cleaning that's a $199 value
Dunepilot
Nov 17, 08:09 AM
It's the Brit pronunciation - like that extra syllable that they throw into aluminum...
Or rather that we haven't removed a letter 'i' from that word.
http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html
Or rather that we haven't removed a letter 'i' from that word.
http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html
jakaj
Oct 28, 03:19 PM
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
Now that's a stupid thing to say. The OSS community doesnt steal the GUI, the warez community does. And those two really don't overlap much.
It is true, though, that everyone might use the work of the OSS community, even for illegal purposes.
Now that's a stupid thing to say. The OSS community doesnt steal the GUI, the warez community does. And those two really don't overlap much.
It is true, though, that everyone might use the work of the OSS community, even for illegal purposes.
wmmk
Aug 13, 10:59 PM
The 20" is still way over-priced.
yeah, but it has an apple logo and is made of brushed metal. if you don't like to pay for design, run unix on a homebuilt PC in a square plastic case.
yeah, but it has an apple logo and is made of brushed metal. if you don't like to pay for design, run unix on a homebuilt PC in a square plastic case.
asphalt-proof
Jan 10, 07:34 PM
I started to think more about this and I think they are going to get punished where it will really hurt: Ad revenue and sample products to review. If i was a vendor, there is no way I would send something to them to review would i advertize on their site. Especially if I were Motorola. I wouldn't be surprised if Gizmodo is shuttered in a month or so. Let them come to Macworld... it will probably be the last conference they ever cover.
Geckotek
Dec 13, 10:21 PM
Ill be handing out grains of salt.
<-----Takes one
I just don't see Apple creating a situation where they're going to have 2 separate refresh dates for the iPhone. Whatever they do, they're going to make it so they refresh ALL of their iPhones around June of every year. Otherwise they're going to put one of the carriers at a distinct disadvantage because Verizon will have the latest technology for up to 6 months before it goes to ATT--which will hurt apple sales overall.
Why on earth would they create such a manufacturing and delivery nightmare??? OF COURSE they would put Verizon and AT&T on 2 separate refresh dates, it only makes sense. The situation you describe is perfectly normal and happens all the time. It's only practical for Apple to do the same.
Will it come in white? :rolleyes:
:D
Is this the same Verizon LTE network that takes about 2 minutes to handshake between the LTE and 3G network?
Yeah, that isn't happening.
Not that I think this is happening, but isn't that issue getting fixed with a simple firmware update?
I'm getting really tired of reading "iPhone on Verizon 4G after Christmas!" rumors on here. WHy is it that every time someone says "Oh, I've heard the iPhone's coming to Verizon in January," MacRumors puts it on the front page or Page 2? Are enough people so totally obsessed with the iPhone, they pee their pants if they don't hear a Verizon iPhone rumor every day/every other day?
Uhhh...because that's the purpose of MacRumors?? :confused:
Not that I believe the rumor, but the phone being LTE only will simply mean that there's one version between the AT&T and verizon phones that supports CDMA and GSM networks. Instead, there will be a CDMA/LTE phone and a GSM 3G phone. Thus, AT&T's LTE network being infantile/non-existent throws a wrench in that.
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
Once again, this makes no sense. There are already capacity issues keeping up with demand. Apple already rolls out to other carriers globally on a delayed schedule. Why would Verizon be any different? That being said, it would be easy for Verizon to tweak a few issues found in the iPhone 4 *cough-antenna-cough*
How about not even putting it up on the site? My question was why do they have to have a new article for every time someone says that?
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
B-BYE!
Y would they make a verizon iPhone before July when they come out with a new one anyway. It's stupid I'm shure that they will come out with one when they always come out with them in JULY. They will make more money (maybe) if they do what they always do, unless apple is becoming like the driods and make a new one every month. Whatever the case may be this verizon rumor is getting pushed back and back
Wrong, they will make more money if they stagger the release. Think about the additional hype that comes with a release. Now do that 2x a year. Yeah...it's the best thing for Apple to do...2 release cycles. One major release with a minor update on the second release.
Actually I think this is what might happen, eventually. But rather than AT&T getting the same spec iPhone "A" 6 months later, they will get the "B" with some improvements, then the next year Verizon gets the "C" 6 months after that and so on... Where they will just keep leap frogging each other. I think the market is moving too fast for Apple to continue with just yearly updates.
Right. One of the problems people have when they try to predict what Apple might do is they assume the past = the future. "Oh, Apple only does yearly updates, so this rumor is impossible." Well, Apple does what it does . . . until it doesn't. They don't do books, but now they do. They don't do movies, but now they do, etc.
Apple is not a MacRumors poster stubbornly sticking to the only thing they know. Apple changes as market conditions change. If they think they can increase profitability and market share by making semi-yearly phone updates, they are going to switch to semi-yearly phone updates. Simple as that.
So a Q1 2011 Verizon phone is quite possible.
^^AGREED^^
I'm not buying it (either in terms of the story, or in terms of a supposed hybrid phone if it does make it to market).
The baseband chipsets don't exist as mass market components (either in supply or feature set).
If they did, they'd suck down battery faster than you could keep the damn thing charged. I think it is pretty clear where Apple plays - technology that is applicable, relevant, and usable.
I don't think 4G is there yet, unless Qualcomm et al are hiding some major hybrid CDMA/LTE chipsets (the LTE-only chipsets themselves are power hogs - why do you think VZW hasn't rolled out handsets, they've limited 4G use to people hooking USB cards into a 3000mAh battery that can feed that 500mAh - 1000mAh draw).
Battery technology is getting better, and the chipsets are getting better, but not in time for a device in January. Maybe I'll eat crow, but I doubt it. If this happens (and it might), it's not going to be a great device that everyone is expecting (read: keep the 4G radio off and use it as a CDMA iPhone 4) or it's simply not going to exist. It's possible VZW needed a retort to ATT's simultaneous voice & data ploy so they included it to check that off the list and the phone will stick to EVDO for nearly everything...but the EVDO<->LTE carrier handoff isn't transparent (far worse than EDGE<->3G), so that is a usability issue in and of itself that I think Apple would not like.
Not that you're definately wrong, but it crosses my mind that we are all assuming that the LTE chipsets will be power hogs when they first come out. But we have no idea if this is the case. They could easily take what they learned from developing the 3G chipsets to start off more efficient with the first get of LTE chipsets.
Like I said, I'm not saying that's the case, it just came to mind that we are all making an assumption re: this aspect of it.
I don't see that happening. It's just not how Apple works.
Really, because Apple never changes right? Excuse me while I go buy that new MacBook Air with the PowerPC chip in it. Oh...wait a tick!
<-----Takes one
I just don't see Apple creating a situation where they're going to have 2 separate refresh dates for the iPhone. Whatever they do, they're going to make it so they refresh ALL of their iPhones around June of every year. Otherwise they're going to put one of the carriers at a distinct disadvantage because Verizon will have the latest technology for up to 6 months before it goes to ATT--which will hurt apple sales overall.
Why on earth would they create such a manufacturing and delivery nightmare??? OF COURSE they would put Verizon and AT&T on 2 separate refresh dates, it only makes sense. The situation you describe is perfectly normal and happens all the time. It's only practical for Apple to do the same.
Will it come in white? :rolleyes:
:D
Is this the same Verizon LTE network that takes about 2 minutes to handshake between the LTE and 3G network?
Yeah, that isn't happening.
Not that I think this is happening, but isn't that issue getting fixed with a simple firmware update?
I'm getting really tired of reading "iPhone on Verizon 4G after Christmas!" rumors on here. WHy is it that every time someone says "Oh, I've heard the iPhone's coming to Verizon in January," MacRumors puts it on the front page or Page 2? Are enough people so totally obsessed with the iPhone, they pee their pants if they don't hear a Verizon iPhone rumor every day/every other day?
Uhhh...because that's the purpose of MacRumors?? :confused:
Not that I believe the rumor, but the phone being LTE only will simply mean that there's one version between the AT&T and verizon phones that supports CDMA and GSM networks. Instead, there will be a CDMA/LTE phone and a GSM 3G phone. Thus, AT&T's LTE network being infantile/non-existent throws a wrench in that.
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
Once again, this makes no sense. There are already capacity issues keeping up with demand. Apple already rolls out to other carriers globally on a delayed schedule. Why would Verizon be any different? That being said, it would be easy for Verizon to tweak a few issues found in the iPhone 4 *cough-antenna-cough*
How about not even putting it up on the site? My question was why do they have to have a new article for every time someone says that?
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
B-BYE!
Y would they make a verizon iPhone before July when they come out with a new one anyway. It's stupid I'm shure that they will come out with one when they always come out with them in JULY. They will make more money (maybe) if they do what they always do, unless apple is becoming like the driods and make a new one every month. Whatever the case may be this verizon rumor is getting pushed back and back
Wrong, they will make more money if they stagger the release. Think about the additional hype that comes with a release. Now do that 2x a year. Yeah...it's the best thing for Apple to do...2 release cycles. One major release with a minor update on the second release.
Actually I think this is what might happen, eventually. But rather than AT&T getting the same spec iPhone "A" 6 months later, they will get the "B" with some improvements, then the next year Verizon gets the "C" 6 months after that and so on... Where they will just keep leap frogging each other. I think the market is moving too fast for Apple to continue with just yearly updates.
Right. One of the problems people have when they try to predict what Apple might do is they assume the past = the future. "Oh, Apple only does yearly updates, so this rumor is impossible." Well, Apple does what it does . . . until it doesn't. They don't do books, but now they do. They don't do movies, but now they do, etc.
Apple is not a MacRumors poster stubbornly sticking to the only thing they know. Apple changes as market conditions change. If they think they can increase profitability and market share by making semi-yearly phone updates, they are going to switch to semi-yearly phone updates. Simple as that.
So a Q1 2011 Verizon phone is quite possible.
^^AGREED^^
I'm not buying it (either in terms of the story, or in terms of a supposed hybrid phone if it does make it to market).
The baseband chipsets don't exist as mass market components (either in supply or feature set).
If they did, they'd suck down battery faster than you could keep the damn thing charged. I think it is pretty clear where Apple plays - technology that is applicable, relevant, and usable.
I don't think 4G is there yet, unless Qualcomm et al are hiding some major hybrid CDMA/LTE chipsets (the LTE-only chipsets themselves are power hogs - why do you think VZW hasn't rolled out handsets, they've limited 4G use to people hooking USB cards into a 3000mAh battery that can feed that 500mAh - 1000mAh draw).
Battery technology is getting better, and the chipsets are getting better, but not in time for a device in January. Maybe I'll eat crow, but I doubt it. If this happens (and it might), it's not going to be a great device that everyone is expecting (read: keep the 4G radio off and use it as a CDMA iPhone 4) or it's simply not going to exist. It's possible VZW needed a retort to ATT's simultaneous voice & data ploy so they included it to check that off the list and the phone will stick to EVDO for nearly everything...but the EVDO<->LTE carrier handoff isn't transparent (far worse than EDGE<->3G), so that is a usability issue in and of itself that I think Apple would not like.
Not that you're definately wrong, but it crosses my mind that we are all assuming that the LTE chipsets will be power hogs when they first come out. But we have no idea if this is the case. They could easily take what they learned from developing the 3G chipsets to start off more efficient with the first get of LTE chipsets.
Like I said, I'm not saying that's the case, it just came to mind that we are all making an assumption re: this aspect of it.
I don't see that happening. It's just not how Apple works.
Really, because Apple never changes right? Excuse me while I go buy that new MacBook Air with the PowerPC chip in it. Oh...wait a tick!
NT1440
Mar 4, 02:10 PM
They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
North America - United States
Reacent Post
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
paradox00
Jul 21, 12:00 PM
Why are Apple on a witch hunt?
Apple should concentrate on fixing their problem instead of finger pointing and deflecting the issue onto other companies. We already know the problem isn't as severe on other devices as the iPhone 4.
The iPhone's antenna issue has been highlighted by other companies in newspaper, online and TV advertisements. Apple is just returning the favor.
I do think the external antenna makes things worse, but the companies Apple is targeting deserve this getting shoved right back in their faces.
PS: Apple has been working on fixing the issue. For starters, you get a free case, or if you're not satisfied you can return the phone for a full refund. Behind the scenes they are definitely trying to fix or minimize the problem as well. I don't know what more you can ask for, really.
Apple should concentrate on fixing their problem instead of finger pointing and deflecting the issue onto other companies. We already know the problem isn't as severe on other devices as the iPhone 4.
The iPhone's antenna issue has been highlighted by other companies in newspaper, online and TV advertisements. Apple is just returning the favor.
I do think the external antenna makes things worse, but the companies Apple is targeting deserve this getting shoved right back in their faces.
PS: Apple has been working on fixing the issue. For starters, you get a free case, or if you're not satisfied you can return the phone for a full refund. Behind the scenes they are definitely trying to fix or minimize the problem as well. I don't know what more you can ask for, really.
tvguru
Sep 12, 07:35 AM
I'm still waiting for my TV Shows in the UK :(
You and every other non-american. Someday....One can dream.
You and every other non-american. Someday....One can dream.
Ger Teunis
Apr 29, 03:15 PM
nevermind
balamw
Aug 7, 02:27 PM
As has been reported in other threads (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2692066&postcount=32) the specs appear to have been bumped too.
Better brightness and contrast are now reported for the 20" and 23".
B
Better brightness and contrast are now reported for the 20" and 23".
B
Inkling
Aug 1, 03:51 PM
DRM should be unified - one DRM standard for ALL devices.
While I'm no great fan of DRM, this makes about as much sense as making all home, car and office locks use the same key. And making files DRM'd under one system transferable to a different DRM (what France was attempting) simply means that no DRM will be stronger than the weakest.
Like it are not, if we want to buy legit music, we've got to have a fairly effective DRM or those who own music have no incentive to release it. Would any of us leave a brand-new MacBook Pro unattended on a park bench while we went into a store? Well, these people have far more invested in their music than we have in our computers.
In short, we shouldn't demand of others different standards than those we live by ourselves.
While I'm no great fan of DRM, this makes about as much sense as making all home, car and office locks use the same key. And making files DRM'd under one system transferable to a different DRM (what France was attempting) simply means that no DRM will be stronger than the weakest.
Like it are not, if we want to buy legit music, we've got to have a fairly effective DRM or those who own music have no incentive to release it. Would any of us leave a brand-new MacBook Pro unattended on a park bench while we went into a store? Well, these people have far more invested in their music than we have in our computers.
In short, we shouldn't demand of others different standards than those we live by ourselves.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 29, 09:44 PM
As for this control panel issue with buttons versus sliders, why does Apple feel they need to group expose and spaces under one control panel anyway?
Why not just make them separate control panels?
Why not just make them separate control panels?
0 comments:
Post a Comment