Tillybug
Mar 17, 12:56 PM
I been a browser of this forum for years, but never posted many threads, Picked up My black 16g wi-fi iPad 2 on launch day at Best Buy. The store was chaos, and it turned out to be a very lucky day. I told the stoner at the register I wanted to pay some of the balance in cash and the rest with my credit card. He counted the cash I gave him which was $230.00 looked dumbfounded for a moment, printed out a receipt and handed me my bag, followed by are we cool? I said yes, walked out and could not believe he never asked for the remaining balance. Walked out with a brand new ipad for 230.00 Wow!! Now normally I'm honest about things in that nature, but I have been screwed by Best Buy so many times I looked at it as being payback. Picked up a green smart cover incase sleeve and a STM micro ipad carry on sling pack, an excellent iPad combo. Yes, there are some minor issues with a little light bleed but no device is perfect, and it's not going to last 5 years. Instead of looking for imperfections and little micro scratches in the aluminum people should have fun and enjoy the device. Hope everyone is enjoying their iPad 2, I know I am
You're a thief.
You're a thief.
thatisme
Apr 15, 12:47 PM
I hope this is true... I really would like to have a more rugged case design on the iPhone (planning on getting the next version). I had the 3G iPhone and the back plate always felt flimsy / fragile.
For the antenna - could the antenna placement be put near the apple logo on the back (maybe that is plastic) or -- might there be enough antenna surface to receive through the front?
I also wonder if they could tie an antenna to the bezel on the front of the phone, or integrate it into the aluminum enclosure on the back. Not knowing metallurgy, I am not sure if there is a way to turn aluminum to a receptive material or could the case be of an aluminum alloy to allow reception?
For the antenna - could the antenna placement be put near the apple logo on the back (maybe that is plastic) or -- might there be enough antenna surface to receive through the front?
I also wonder if they could tie an antenna to the bezel on the front of the phone, or integrate it into the aluminum enclosure on the back. Not knowing metallurgy, I am not sure if there is a way to turn aluminum to a receptive material or could the case be of an aluminum alloy to allow reception?
CaoCao
Apr 18, 07:25 PM
Or, perhaps, because of? Makes them tougher.
Discuss. :)
Likewise with the Jews perhaps? :rolleyes:
It's already been explained to you that left-handedness is mentioned in history classes. Why do you have a problem with gay people being discussed? WHY?
Answer the question, although I think I already know your answer.
My point is lefties don't get history coverage in California so why should homosexuals? Furthermore American history classes end in the 1950s. I wouldn't have a problem with homosexuals being discussed when pertinent if we actually had the time, as it stands we don't.
So you're cool with left-handers but not left-footers (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=left%20footer)?
:confused:
depends on the meaning of left-footer
They already misrepresent Islamic history in US schools. Saudi funded history books make it seem that Islam spread peacefully through the maghreb, arabian peninsula and levant/asia minor, but actually it was spread on the point of the Mohammedon's blade.
Why not teach gay history too? At least gays don't perform violent acts and then use their scriptures to justify it lol
Don't forget al-Andalus being the epitome of civilization and tolerance in Europe
Doesn't your first statement contradict the second?
Wouldn't learning disorders, dyslexia, stuttering and other speech disorders make it more difficult to "do well in society"?
mea culpa, I badly worded that, I meant when they aren't forced to use their right hand, for example of the last seven presidents five have been lefties
Discuss. :)
Likewise with the Jews perhaps? :rolleyes:
It's already been explained to you that left-handedness is mentioned in history classes. Why do you have a problem with gay people being discussed? WHY?
Answer the question, although I think I already know your answer.
My point is lefties don't get history coverage in California so why should homosexuals? Furthermore American history classes end in the 1950s. I wouldn't have a problem with homosexuals being discussed when pertinent if we actually had the time, as it stands we don't.
So you're cool with left-handers but not left-footers (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=left%20footer)?
:confused:
depends on the meaning of left-footer
They already misrepresent Islamic history in US schools. Saudi funded history books make it seem that Islam spread peacefully through the maghreb, arabian peninsula and levant/asia minor, but actually it was spread on the point of the Mohammedon's blade.
Why not teach gay history too? At least gays don't perform violent acts and then use their scriptures to justify it lol
Don't forget al-Andalus being the epitome of civilization and tolerance in Europe
Doesn't your first statement contradict the second?
Wouldn't learning disorders, dyslexia, stuttering and other speech disorders make it more difficult to "do well in society"?
mea culpa, I badly worded that, I meant when they aren't forced to use their right hand, for example of the last seven presidents five have been lefties
jimbo110
Sep 12, 08:36 AM
It's showtime in the danish store as well. It looks like a international update. That's positive sign.
dayloon
Apr 9, 05:28 PM
A lot of the 'rumours' you posted are nonsense. Windows 8 will not and will never be unix based
63dot
Mar 4, 10:43 PM
Ironic that a western country with one of the highest levels of unionization, including public sector unions, and all the evil evil socialized stuff such as pensions, healthcare etc. has the highest growth rate, best unemployment rate and most balanced budget. Germany.
Kinda defeats your argument, fivepoint. Also, considering the level of unionization, Germany has in percentage points double the industrial production jobs that the US does. And all these companies are world leaders in their segments.
Americans are diluded if they think ultracon vulture capitalism will save them, it is exactly what got them into this mess to begin with.
Cheers,
Ahmed
What you are talking about is tested true economics where a healthy and well paid workforce lends to a stronger economy. With the large number of workers with income to burn, then the economy circulates monies and has a built in consumer base.
But take fivepoint's theory, which for a lack of better name, is laissez-faire economics and trickle down theory. On its face it makes sense to put the money into the hands of the educated and rich, and they will re-invest it back into society creating the most bang for the buck and the fastest pace of innovation possible. However, with human nature being that people (even rich people) want to hoard, then what we end up with is a stagnate economy with no turnover. Eight years of George W. Bush and his policies show this to be pretty obvious. Anybody who believes in the old trickle down theory is falling into the trap that it can work.
I don't think government intervention, to the point of government micromanagement is a good thing, but I don't think the liberals are out to make that their goal. We need to strike a balance where business can operate and make a profit, but at the same time have a government, though limited, who can play more like a referee looking out for the best interests of the people. And it's the people who have the responsibility to vote if they don't like the government that is in place.
America put in a lot of wet behind the ears tea party republicans, and this two year period is their time to shine while in the House. So far, they appear to be falling on their face. But I will give the GOP a chance and see if they can deliver on their promises and I will be willing to give them credit if they make headway yet fall short. We are in a tough economy.
But the last thing we need to do in this recession is to blow the horn of trickle down economics knowing it didn't work with 8 years of the GOP recently in the White House, and with a 12 year run mostly in the 1980s which hiked up the deficit and failed miserably in its chief election promise of reducing the national deficit and sustain a long term growth of the economy. Jimmy Carter's spending was the GOP's main talking point and when the GOP made Jimmy look like a miser, then they had to fall on diversion tactics like abortion, family values, and religion when they realized their #1 talking point was a failure in practice.
With so much confusion as to whether a republican is represented by a pro-business/big corporation plank or more of a small-government plank akin to some tea party politicians, I don't care what the House calls themselves as long as they get results. It's early yet but the GOP has started off this year in the world possible way.
Kinda defeats your argument, fivepoint. Also, considering the level of unionization, Germany has in percentage points double the industrial production jobs that the US does. And all these companies are world leaders in their segments.
Americans are diluded if they think ultracon vulture capitalism will save them, it is exactly what got them into this mess to begin with.
Cheers,
Ahmed
What you are talking about is tested true economics where a healthy and well paid workforce lends to a stronger economy. With the large number of workers with income to burn, then the economy circulates monies and has a built in consumer base.
But take fivepoint's theory, which for a lack of better name, is laissez-faire economics and trickle down theory. On its face it makes sense to put the money into the hands of the educated and rich, and they will re-invest it back into society creating the most bang for the buck and the fastest pace of innovation possible. However, with human nature being that people (even rich people) want to hoard, then what we end up with is a stagnate economy with no turnover. Eight years of George W. Bush and his policies show this to be pretty obvious. Anybody who believes in the old trickle down theory is falling into the trap that it can work.
I don't think government intervention, to the point of government micromanagement is a good thing, but I don't think the liberals are out to make that their goal. We need to strike a balance where business can operate and make a profit, but at the same time have a government, though limited, who can play more like a referee looking out for the best interests of the people. And it's the people who have the responsibility to vote if they don't like the government that is in place.
America put in a lot of wet behind the ears tea party republicans, and this two year period is their time to shine while in the House. So far, they appear to be falling on their face. But I will give the GOP a chance and see if they can deliver on their promises and I will be willing to give them credit if they make headway yet fall short. We are in a tough economy.
But the last thing we need to do in this recession is to blow the horn of trickle down economics knowing it didn't work with 8 years of the GOP recently in the White House, and with a 12 year run mostly in the 1980s which hiked up the deficit and failed miserably in its chief election promise of reducing the national deficit and sustain a long term growth of the economy. Jimmy Carter's spending was the GOP's main talking point and when the GOP made Jimmy look like a miser, then they had to fall on diversion tactics like abortion, family values, and religion when they realized their #1 talking point was a failure in practice.
With so much confusion as to whether a republican is represented by a pro-business/big corporation plank or more of a small-government plank akin to some tea party politicians, I don't care what the House calls themselves as long as they get results. It's early yet but the GOP has started off this year in the world possible way.
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 11:04 AM
Showoff ;)
You're basically bragging that you have $100K in Apple stock. Nice!!!! :D Your faith is being rewarded handsomely...
Two can play at that game. I still have the 400 shares I bought in 1997.
Do the math. :)
You're basically bragging that you have $100K in Apple stock. Nice!!!! :D Your faith is being rewarded handsomely...
Two can play at that game. I still have the 400 shares I bought in 1997.
Do the math. :)
definitive
Apr 15, 03:51 PM
why even bother posting these fake pictures?
monochrome noise filter in photoshop, anyone?
monochrome noise filter in photoshop, anyone?
dumb terminal
Apr 24, 02:26 PM
I hope windows gets rid of the dos command shell and don't have to rely on third party tools like cygwin. If W8 is unix based, it would be glorious.
I hope they don't get rid of the command shell. That would make system administration a real pain in the neck.
Especially when you've been doing system administration since the days of NT 4.0/2000, and use cmd for everything (yes, even tasks that are done easily through a GUI).
I don't see any of this changing anytime soon. That said, Powershell was a great step in the right direction, and added a lot of useful functionality.
I hope they don't get rid of the command shell. That would make system administration a real pain in the neck.
Especially when you've been doing system administration since the days of NT 4.0/2000, and use cmd for everything (yes, even tasks that are done easily through a GUI).
I don't see any of this changing anytime soon. That said, Powershell was a great step in the right direction, and added a lot of useful functionality.
miles01110
Apr 21, 02:43 PM
oh so Apple being sued isn't bad for Apple? and Apple sueing somebody isn't good for Apple because they are defending their patents? :rolleyes:
oh so those were the only two stories that received votes? :rolleyes:
oh so those were the only two stories that received votes? :rolleyes:
jimthorn
Jan 9, 05:19 PM
You can't download a file via rtsp protocol (as far as I know). Only stream.
jephrey
Oct 12, 09:32 AM
iBeard, you're assuming that the only thing a larger screen is good for is movies/tv. With a 4" screen on the pod, you have a larger viewing area for more than movies/tv. You have it for games, pictures, chat(when available), text, better view of album artwork, and so on. It may not be for you because you may only use your pod for music, but you gotta admit there's a huge market for it.
J
J
KnightWRX
Mar 9, 05:43 AM
Take this for example
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/asuset2700aio2.jpg
You do realise that's a Touch screen on that Asus all-in-one right ? You also realise HP's all in one has had a touch screen for a while. Yet the day Apple ships a touch screen iMac, you can bet a lot of people here will think they were the first to do it.
Or uh.. hrm..
all those HP laptops coming out right now? XD
Yeah, not to mention Sony's use of chicklet keyboa... err.. wait, Apple took that idea from them and not the other way around. ;)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/asuset2700aio2.jpg
You do realise that's a Touch screen on that Asus all-in-one right ? You also realise HP's all in one has had a touch screen for a while. Yet the day Apple ships a touch screen iMac, you can bet a lot of people here will think they were the first to do it.
Or uh.. hrm..
all those HP laptops coming out right now? XD
Yeah, not to mention Sony's use of chicklet keyboa... err.. wait, Apple took that idea from them and not the other way around. ;)
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 04:42 PM
Replace the urinals in Men's washrooms with stalls, knock out the wall between there and the Woman's loo, and make it one large Unisex facility.
Problem solved.
Then the men can stand in line too. :p
Problem solved.
Then the men can stand in line too. :p
tvguru
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
I can't imagine why Apple would have an event like this if there was going to be only Disney content available.
Could be another speaker perhaps. :p
Could be another speaker perhaps. :p
TPFolair
Sep 12, 07:54 AM
hate to ask a stupid, perhaps already answered a gagillion times, question but
is there a live feed of today's proceedings?
is there a live feed of today's proceedings?
SirROM
Sep 12, 01:16 AM
I had a thought about what would drive people to purchase movies from Apple in droves and totally fsck the other studios, making them BEG the Steve to let them play in his sandbox:
Disney allows Apple to release movies BEFORE they are released on DVD, similar to what they have done a couple of time with music tracks. Imagine being able to have a copy of the recent Pirates movies a week or two before it can be bought with packaging. If the quality were good enough, people would probably be willing to forgo the packaging itself and pay an "early-adopter" fee of $14.99 just for the bragging rights. The media would be all over this and it would be seen as yet another Apple coup in Hollywood. After all, Walmart and Blockbuster would join Ballmer in throwing chairs because of the money they would start losing when people didn't buy or rent DVDs from them and they couldn't do anything about it for a couple of weeks. "Hey Walmart! Wanna play dirty? I'll show you dirty..."
I'll bet Steve has some other plan like this or similar in mind so this doesn't come off looking weak and like he lost against the studios.
Disney allows Apple to release movies BEFORE they are released on DVD, similar to what they have done a couple of time with music tracks. Imagine being able to have a copy of the recent Pirates movies a week or two before it can be bought with packaging. If the quality were good enough, people would probably be willing to forgo the packaging itself and pay an "early-adopter" fee of $14.99 just for the bragging rights. The media would be all over this and it would be seen as yet another Apple coup in Hollywood. After all, Walmart and Blockbuster would join Ballmer in throwing chairs because of the money they would start losing when people didn't buy or rent DVDs from them and they couldn't do anything about it for a couple of weeks. "Hey Walmart! Wanna play dirty? I'll show you dirty..."
I'll bet Steve has some other plan like this or similar in mind so this doesn't come off looking weak and like he lost against the studios.
reallynotnick
Apr 25, 04:30 PM
As an owner of a 4.3in EVO (came from the original iPhone), I have to say I welcome a larger screen on the iPhone, though I admit 4.3in is quite large. I figure 3.7-4in is the sweet spot.
swarmster
Jan 9, 05:33 PM
Everyone please be careful opening Quicktime (to do an "open url..." as MacRumors recommends)! If you have it set to load the 'content guide' on startup, there's a spoiler image waiting for you.
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
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.
puuukeey
Jan 9, 01:48 PM
It refreshes the supposed page every minute!
NICE!!!
NICE!!!
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:33 AM
You are really disenchanted by this thread arent you?
But at the end of the day its your fault. You are the leader you must take responsibility.
I sure am, just a broken, shadow of my former self.
As the highest-posting 68040 I feel distraught at my ineptitude as leader. but in about 13 more posts I'll be the most junior 601 and then I'll pass the buck up the line. :D
But at the end of the day its your fault. You are the leader you must take responsibility.
I sure am, just a broken, shadow of my former self.
As the highest-posting 68040 I feel distraught at my ineptitude as leader. but in about 13 more posts I'll be the most junior 601 and then I'll pass the buck up the line. :D
frjonah
Apr 29, 10:12 PM
This may be off-topic, but does anyone know if the recently purchased Mac products are "grandfathered in" for a Lion release? In other words, I just bought a new MacBook Pro yesterday... am I going to need to pay to upgrade to Lion?
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
pohl
Mar 28, 05:02 PM
I predict that the revenue bump experienced by award winners in previous years will pale in comparison to the bump received by 2011 winners in conjunction with the placement they'll get in the app store following the award. And the 2012 bump will eclipse that.
No comments:
Post a Comment