vincenz
Oct 5, 05:10 PM
Wonder if he'll let me crash on his sofa!
grmatt
Apr 5, 03:11 PM
I knew there'd be a lot of "wuts" but this makes sense. If you don't like it, don't download it. I'm sure plenty of people will and it only adds value to their advertisers.
Honestly though, some of the ads are really well done. Maybe I just appreciate them more than some others being that I am kind of in the industry.
Honestly though, some of the ads are really well done. Maybe I just appreciate them more than some others being that I am kind of in the industry.
CaoCao
Apr 17, 02:25 PM
I doubt Lee missed your point; maybe your point is just undefendable. For example, explain how you can prove that adding a bit of content about modern history will somehow force something else out of the curriculum. That there are a finite amount of class hours isn't good enough.
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
Eric S.
Mar 30, 10:43 AM
So the next will be:
OS Xi
... little i being key.
Yes, it's already here; it's called iOS.
OS Xi
... little i being key.
Yes, it's already here; it's called iOS.
more...
Yakuza
Apr 16, 08:58 AM
What about if the Apple logo lights up white briefly to act as the inbuilt flash?
that would be very cooooool, even if it wasn't a flash, the apple logo light up when playing around with the phone would really be nice
agree. it would be a neat design for the phone but im hoping its differnt than that. plus if it were all metal the signal would be horrible.
The iMac is all aluminum, and it needs the wi-Fi signal, and it seems to work fine.
I don't see how the writing on the iPhone is crooked or whatever, maybe I'm blind. The photo looks real. But I hope it's not, and if it is real, I hope that's just a prototype, because I don't like the square shape and the angular edges on the back.
That's my thought. a prototype. a very first prtotype
that would be very cooooool, even if it wasn't a flash, the apple logo light up when playing around with the phone would really be nice
agree. it would be a neat design for the phone but im hoping its differnt than that. plus if it were all metal the signal would be horrible.
The iMac is all aluminum, and it needs the wi-Fi signal, and it seems to work fine.
I don't see how the writing on the iPhone is crooked or whatever, maybe I'm blind. The photo looks real. But I hope it's not, and if it is real, I hope that's just a prototype, because I don't like the square shape and the angular edges on the back.
That's my thought. a prototype. a very first prtotype
dunk321
Mar 17, 10:25 AM
MacRumours also known as the moral police! lmao Cracks me up especially after all the post I have read in the past about people receiving extra computers in the mail by accident from apple!!! And if I was a troll and made this whole thing up completely, I have succeeded for sure, for laughing at all of the post in this stupid thread it has ruffled some nerves of the people at home wishing they had an Ipad, insted of posting from their Acer Netbook. This place is a joke
more...
lmalave
Oct 19, 12:58 PM
2. Slim MacBook? Don't you mean tiny MacBook? Apple could quite easily make the iPhone Smartphone and the MacBook Nano one and the same.
I don't think so - we're talking about radically different form-factors for a superslim MacBook vs. a PDA smartphone. A MacBook still has to have a decent screen and keyboard, and an iPhone Pro still needs to be pocket size.
Here's what I might expect:
1) MacBook nano: 10.6" widescreen, metallic finish in nano colors, and thinner and more rounded than the current MacBooks (though the slimness will be limited by the optical drive, unless they get rid of an internal optical drive which I don't think Apple will do)
2) iPhone Pro: probably a slider phone with a Treo/Blackberry style qwerty keyboard tucked away. Maybe Apple will innovate here and come up with something better than a slider though. The options I've seen for integrating a qwerty keyboard are:
- regular solid bar-type phone like Treo or Blackberry
- slider phone like LG Chocolate (haven't seen this for a smart phone though)
- sideways slider like Sidekick or T-Mobile MDA
- sideways clamshell like Nokia Communicator
Personally I think both the "slim" iPhone and the "PDA" iPhone will be slider phones. The reason being that I think Apple will design the phones to look almost exactly like the iPod when viewed from the front. So I think the "slim" phone will basically be be a slider iPod nano, and the "PDA" phone will basically be a slider video iPod. Probably they will only be offered in one color to start with, in order to simplify manufacturing and inventory control. Probably silver or black for the iPod nano phone, and black for the iPod PDA phone. Though both phones will have a metal case instead of plastic...
I don't think so - we're talking about radically different form-factors for a superslim MacBook vs. a PDA smartphone. A MacBook still has to have a decent screen and keyboard, and an iPhone Pro still needs to be pocket size.
Here's what I might expect:
1) MacBook nano: 10.6" widescreen, metallic finish in nano colors, and thinner and more rounded than the current MacBooks (though the slimness will be limited by the optical drive, unless they get rid of an internal optical drive which I don't think Apple will do)
2) iPhone Pro: probably a slider phone with a Treo/Blackberry style qwerty keyboard tucked away. Maybe Apple will innovate here and come up with something better than a slider though. The options I've seen for integrating a qwerty keyboard are:
- regular solid bar-type phone like Treo or Blackberry
- slider phone like LG Chocolate (haven't seen this for a smart phone though)
- sideways slider like Sidekick or T-Mobile MDA
- sideways clamshell like Nokia Communicator
Personally I think both the "slim" iPhone and the "PDA" iPhone will be slider phones. The reason being that I think Apple will design the phones to look almost exactly like the iPod when viewed from the front. So I think the "slim" phone will basically be be a slider iPod nano, and the "PDA" phone will basically be a slider video iPod. Probably they will only be offered in one color to start with, in order to simplify manufacturing and inventory control. Probably silver or black for the iPod nano phone, and black for the iPod PDA phone. Though both phones will have a metal case instead of plastic...
CaoCao
Apr 15, 08:07 PM
What's CST? I honestly have no idea. Actually, the entire sentence is confusing, could you clarify?
There is not enough time to cover all the material on the California Standardized Test (CST), this week we crammed (American Studies) on WWII to get it covered before the CST in two weeks (26th). Best part is that plenty of the material is on civil rights+cold war.
There is not enough time to cover all the material on the California Standardized Test (CST), this week we crammed (American Studies) on WWII to get it covered before the CST in two weeks (26th). Best part is that plenty of the material is on civil rights+cold war.
more...
Benjy91
Apr 18, 06:43 AM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
Not true, Id say that is in the small minority, believing that is falling in line with the people who believe that simply plugging a PC running Windows into the Internet will result in it being flooded with viruses within seconds.
There are plenty of apps on my iPhone from Cydia that merely add improved functionality, like 'Infinifolder' which lets me have unlimited apps in a folder. iBlacklist, which lets me block numbers without having to get my carrier to do it for me. BiteSMS, which lets me read, reply, look up their profile, or call them from the recieved SMS window, without having to leave my current App.
Not true, Id say that is in the small minority, believing that is falling in line with the people who believe that simply plugging a PC running Windows into the Internet will result in it being flooded with viruses within seconds.
There are plenty of apps on my iPhone from Cydia that merely add improved functionality, like 'Infinifolder' which lets me have unlimited apps in a folder. iBlacklist, which lets me block numbers without having to get my carrier to do it for me. BiteSMS, which lets me read, reply, look up their profile, or call them from the recieved SMS window, without having to leave my current App.
Clive At Five
Oct 3, 12:55 PM
Here are my predictions (hold on to your pocket-protectors):
Steve will enter the stage, the crowd will go wild, and he'll work on quieting them with lines such as, "I'd like to get started; we have a lot of great products I'd like to show you..." He'll proceed to talk about iTunes, the iPod, the iTS, so on and so forth, talk about OS X's user base, maybe touch on Leopard. He'll release TelePort (iTV), iWork & iLife as is expected, and finally, after he's done with the usual rambling about how great Apple is, he'll say "We've talked about some great products. We've talked about Mac OS X, we've talked about how to bring iTunes content into your living room... but I wanna talk about one more thing..." and dazzle us with an update to .Mac .
We'll all proceed to connect to MacRumors and complain about how ****** stupid Apple is, yet continue buy every new release of anything they've ever produced.
You know it's true. ;)
Okay, really? TelePort, iWork, iLife, and either the true Video iPod or the PhonePod but not both. If they haven't been updated before the x-mas buying season, MPBs.
-Clive
[Edit:] Fixed spelling and grammar errors. Made myself look good. No content was changed.
Steve will enter the stage, the crowd will go wild, and he'll work on quieting them with lines such as, "I'd like to get started; we have a lot of great products I'd like to show you..." He'll proceed to talk about iTunes, the iPod, the iTS, so on and so forth, talk about OS X's user base, maybe touch on Leopard. He'll release TelePort (iTV), iWork & iLife as is expected, and finally, after he's done with the usual rambling about how great Apple is, he'll say "We've talked about some great products. We've talked about Mac OS X, we've talked about how to bring iTunes content into your living room... but I wanna talk about one more thing..." and dazzle us with an update to .Mac .
We'll all proceed to connect to MacRumors and complain about how ****** stupid Apple is, yet continue buy every new release of anything they've ever produced.
You know it's true. ;)
Okay, really? TelePort, iWork, iLife, and either the true Video iPod or the PhonePod but not both. If they haven't been updated before the x-mas buying season, MPBs.
-Clive
[Edit:] Fixed spelling and grammar errors. Made myself look good. No content was changed.
more...
Aperture
Jan 8, 09:35 PM
Just to up the neurosis of this spoiler free page, I wonder if any leaks could be given on our visions periphery by the advertising?
Thought of this.. but you shouldn't see a change in advertising within maybe 24 hours. Could be wrong but just a good guess.
Thought of this.. but you shouldn't see a change in advertising within maybe 24 hours. Could be wrong but just a good guess.
mozmac
Oct 19, 11:38 AM
Seriously...Gateway still sells computers? As I walk through campus I see: Dell, Dell, Mac, Dell, HP, Mac, Mac, HP, Dell...wait, what's that? Oh, one Gateway. Yeah, who buys Gateway computers anymore? I appreciate Apple passing them up soon.
more...
JoeG4
Sep 25, 05:03 PM
*yawn* This is like as if MS made a press event only to announce a .1 update to IE. :confused:
WTF is so damn important about a .5 update of Aperture? If it's anything like iPhoto that's one program I wouldn't be spending $500 or whataever on. :D
WTF is so damn important about a .5 update of Aperture? If it's anything like iPhoto that's one program I wouldn't be spending $500 or whataever on. :D
fivepoint
May 6, 09:47 AM
Exactly. I have never understood why my more liberal friends want to ban anything. Education is the key to solving the vast majority of our problems, not ignorance or fear. I grew up around guns all my life and had fun with them. I also loved archery.
After starting to play hockey and having skydived for three years, the one thing I've finally learned that is the most helpful thing in life is this- do things that scare you. Learn about them. You'll be better off, and you'll grow immensely as a person. Those things will also bring incredible people into your life.
Go to a firing range and learn about guns, citizenzen- even if it scares and repulses you. Trust me, you'll be all the better for it, and you might learn something about yourself you never knew was there. After all, knowledge is power.
I believe this might LITERALLY be the first time I've ever read something from Lee, been impressed with it's depth, and not been saddened by the complete opacity of his partisan blinders.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
After starting to play hockey and having skydived for three years, the one thing I've finally learned that is the most helpful thing in life is this- do things that scare you. Learn about them. You'll be better off, and you'll grow immensely as a person. Those things will also bring incredible people into your life.
Go to a firing range and learn about guns, citizenzen- even if it scares and repulses you. Trust me, you'll be all the better for it, and you might learn something about yourself you never knew was there. After all, knowledge is power.
I believe this might LITERALLY be the first time I've ever read something from Lee, been impressed with it's depth, and not been saddened by the complete opacity of his partisan blinders.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
more...
Since '84
Jul 21, 04:21 PM
You know, I've been reading all this stuff, and was a bit worried while I waited for my iPhone4 to arrive. Since then, I have traveled to 4 countries on business, and have been a long distance train through rural areas. I have tried everywhere to use the death grip to drop the signal to 0, but I can't. I can't get it to drop a call, and I can't get it to lose signal - I can get it to 1 bar but I can still surf on 3G with that, and the call quality has been fine. I've used overseas carriers' SIM's too...And I'm left handed, and have no case.
At the end of all this, I've simply decided that for me, this phone is the best I've had, and I have no problem with it in any way. I'm just glad I won't have to read all this stuff and worry any more. Sorry if you have problems, but as everyone says, take it back. Being a long time Mac user I have no problem using equipment that is not the most common anyway.
At the end of all this, I've simply decided that for me, this phone is the best I've had, and I have no problem with it in any way. I'm just glad I won't have to read all this stuff and worry any more. Sorry if you have problems, but as everyone says, take it back. Being a long time Mac user I have no problem using equipment that is not the most common anyway.
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.
more...
kenypowa
May 3, 10:50 PM
This is a very effective ad. Much better than the current iPhone ads.
mrkramer
Apr 16, 11:49 AM
So when talking about WWII, we shouldn't mention that Turing was gay?
Why does it matter that he was gay? I thought that gay people where supposed to be the same as everyone else. Did his being gay give him some sort of super powers to break codes?
Why does it matter that he was gay? I thought that gay people where supposed to be the same as everyone else. Did his being gay give him some sort of super powers to break codes?
ghostlines
Apr 6, 04:37 AM
My experience with iAds has been good, you sometimes see interesting stuff. But what I like about them most is that somehow they don't seem intrusive or annoying. They're just a a record in tableview that we can just easily flick pass.
Normal ads on website stick on the banner or sidebar if you don't have any adblock plugins installed, and that makes those so annoying.
Normal ads on website stick on the banner or sidebar if you don't have any adblock plugins installed, and that makes those so annoying.
lorductape
Nov 16, 02:33 PM
i think it would be a great idea for apple to merge with AMD
jowie
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
I actually really dislike the borderless look. I hope they don't do this. A larger screen is one thing I really don't need. If I want a big screen, I'll get an iPad.
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:22 AM
NO
Thank you. I've been restraining myself from doing that. How many times do we need to say that?
Thank you. I've been restraining myself from doing that. How many times do we need to say that?
SMM
Oct 20, 08:24 PM
and then there will be numerous viruses for the mac that will be unleashed into the wild.
and then norton will have numerous profits from mac viruses, along with windows viruses.
the two bad news i'm worried most from this.
aside from that, means more games , and software support along with hardware support should be increasing as well which are good.
it seems that most of the profits came from college students and travelers, as hh has noted. i thought the imac had strong sales, but it's easy to see why the notebook familly has such good sales.
oh, and i hope the laptops won't get any thinner. apple's having a big problem with cooling their laptops already. it's not worth having so much problems by cutting a few mms off the height.
Yes, the common belief is that the only reason Apple, Unix, Linux is spared from viruses is because of their market share. Quite frankly, I am not buying that. There would be more notoriety in being the first to exploit the Fort Knox of virus security. There is a good reason these systems are hard to crack, and Unix people know this. Your average pimply-faced little prick does not have the wherewithal to defeat a Unix system. By the time they can figure it out, they usually have jobs and 401K's. Of course, this does not account for the professional virus/malware creators who work for Norton, McAfee, and the rest. After all, there is no reason to buy their products, if there is no need to do so. None of them have been caught, so it is just 'conspiracy theory'. Eventually, one of their 'black ops' folk will realize the incredible wealth, and fame to be gained by exposing this. It will come out.
and then norton will have numerous profits from mac viruses, along with windows viruses.
the two bad news i'm worried most from this.
aside from that, means more games , and software support along with hardware support should be increasing as well which are good.
it seems that most of the profits came from college students and travelers, as hh has noted. i thought the imac had strong sales, but it's easy to see why the notebook familly has such good sales.
oh, and i hope the laptops won't get any thinner. apple's having a big problem with cooling their laptops already. it's not worth having so much problems by cutting a few mms off the height.
Yes, the common belief is that the only reason Apple, Unix, Linux is spared from viruses is because of their market share. Quite frankly, I am not buying that. There would be more notoriety in being the first to exploit the Fort Knox of virus security. There is a good reason these systems are hard to crack, and Unix people know this. Your average pimply-faced little prick does not have the wherewithal to defeat a Unix system. By the time they can figure it out, they usually have jobs and 401K's. Of course, this does not account for the professional virus/malware creators who work for Norton, McAfee, and the rest. After all, there is no reason to buy their products, if there is no need to do so. None of them have been caught, so it is just 'conspiracy theory'. Eventually, one of their 'black ops' folk will realize the incredible wealth, and fame to be gained by exposing this. It will come out.
fivepoint
May 5, 03:21 PM
So, to me a question about firearms in the home seems perfectly within the scope of evaluating risks, and more probably, helping to provide information for parents.
Doctors shouldn't ask these questions to be busybodies, but to make good decisions and provide care.
That's kinda the whole point here, isn't it? You may think it's ok, others may not. We're all different, all of our situations are different, different families have more/less, or just different risk than other families. There's no right, there's no wrong, the point is we don't need the damn government getting involved and telling doctors what they can and can't ask. Or for that matter telling doctors who they must and who they musn't provide care for. It's a private transaction between the customer and the physician, so leave it at that. Don't tread on me.
Doctors shouldn't ask these questions to be busybodies, but to make good decisions and provide care.
That's kinda the whole point here, isn't it? You may think it's ok, others may not. We're all different, all of our situations are different, different families have more/less, or just different risk than other families. There's no right, there's no wrong, the point is we don't need the damn government getting involved and telling doctors what they can and can't ask. Or for that matter telling doctors who they must and who they musn't provide care for. It's a private transaction between the customer and the physician, so leave it at that. Don't tread on me.
