Criticalmass
Apr 16, 11:17 PM
Mac O.S X is better here, someone mentioned that Windows is better at security.
I disagree. Botnets like Zeus and Coreflood still infiltrate windows systems daily and anti-virus has yet to be able to stop them and remove them.
I disagree. Botnets like Zeus and Coreflood still infiltrate windows systems daily and anti-virus has yet to be able to stop them and remove them.
MOFS
Mar 10, 02:11 AM
The Click Wheel interface was/is an abomination and exactly the opposite of a "good" interface. It's a horrible mess. The only usable iPod is the iPod Touch.
I disagree. The click wheel made it easier to use, as it was intuitive (scrolling clockwise down, anticlockwise up), and was also easily used inside a pocket [find the clickwheel and you're go]. The clickwheel has been hailed as a masterstroke for Apple; getting rid of the plethora of buttons on MP3 players and replacing it with a sleek interface. I find it the most annoying part of using my iPhone is that I have to look at the screen to use the controls.
I disagree. The click wheel made it easier to use, as it was intuitive (scrolling clockwise down, anticlockwise up), and was also easily used inside a pocket [find the clickwheel and you're go]. The clickwheel has been hailed as a masterstroke for Apple; getting rid of the plethora of buttons on MP3 players and replacing it with a sleek interface. I find it the most annoying part of using my iPhone is that I have to look at the screen to use the controls.
Mystikal
Mar 17, 01:10 PM
Yeah that employee probably lost his job dude.
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...
LagunaSol
May 3, 11:56 PM
Android commercials need more rectal probing.
Google does all the rectal probing to Android users. ;)
Google does all the rectal probing to Android users. ;)
roadbloc
Apr 22, 06:07 PM
Here's the reality of this non-issue...
You'd be up in arms if Google were doing it. Or anyone else to that matter.
I like how you have, yet again, managed to turn a non-Apple related discussion, to a discussion about Apple. Grats.
You'd be up in arms if Google were doing it. Or anyone else to that matter.
I like how you have, yet again, managed to turn a non-Apple related discussion, to a discussion about Apple. Grats.
more...
PurrBall
Apr 30, 11:56 PM
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
Must just be a regional thing. I've never lived anywhere else, so.. Almost everyone here owns some sort of truck or trailer (how else do you bring your brush and stuff to the dump etc?). It's not something you utilize fully daily, but you don't want to have to have someone else do for you. PCs will probably end up for certain types of users who need to use more high-end applications or require large screen real estate.
Must just be a regional thing. I've never lived anywhere else, so.. Almost everyone here owns some sort of truck or trailer (how else do you bring your brush and stuff to the dump etc?). It's not something you utilize fully daily, but you don't want to have to have someone else do for you. PCs will probably end up for certain types of users who need to use more high-end applications or require large screen real estate.
musser
Nov 26, 05:11 PM
Look at these numbers. Is that anything to write home about?
more...
iBug2
Apr 29, 02:12 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
This will happen eventually, but not just with Apple. All commercial OS's will go "closed". But not in 2-3 years, more like 10-15 or so. Your only chance for an open OS will be stuff like Linux then.
Anyway, I've already said too much. :)
This will happen eventually, but not just with Apple. All commercial OS's will go "closed". But not in 2-3 years, more like 10-15 or so. Your only chance for an open OS will be stuff like Linux then.
Anyway, I've already said too much. :)
Eidorian
Nov 16, 04:22 PM
Maybe the AMD laptops are coming today :eek:
The store is currently down...
http://images.apple.com/r/store/backsoon/title_backsoon1.gifVery interesting! :D
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
The store is currently down...
http://images.apple.com/r/store/backsoon/title_backsoon1.gifVery interesting! :D
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
more...
JackAxe
Mar 24, 06:11 PM
Happy birthday to Apple's 'ONLY' good OS! :)
AP_piano295
Apr 25, 02:36 PM
my question is what would you have McDonalds employees do.
You are asking teenagers to get involved in a fight and try to break it up.
Not really something you expect the average person of the street to do why should teenagers working and McDonalds be any different.
Heck most of the time betting/ fights are over before the brain finishes processing "Is that really happening?" followed by "Should I do anything?" Most of the time they get stuck in an endless loop of not sure what to do and the fight or flight responses takes over.
While the people doing the beating deserve to rot in jail at the same time I would not expect the employees to do anything other than really call the cops. This is one would you expect a person of the street to do something other than really call the cops and it is still over by the time the above loop is completed.
Well I don't know about you but if I saw someone beating the **** out of someone else while I'm working I would certainly get involved. And I would expect the same consideration from others.
If your employed somewhere part of your job is keeping the peace.
You are asking teenagers to get involved in a fight and try to break it up.
Not really something you expect the average person of the street to do why should teenagers working and McDonalds be any different.
Heck most of the time betting/ fights are over before the brain finishes processing "Is that really happening?" followed by "Should I do anything?" Most of the time they get stuck in an endless loop of not sure what to do and the fight or flight responses takes over.
While the people doing the beating deserve to rot in jail at the same time I would not expect the employees to do anything other than really call the cops. This is one would you expect a person of the street to do something other than really call the cops and it is still over by the time the above loop is completed.
Well I don't know about you but if I saw someone beating the **** out of someone else while I'm working I would certainly get involved. And I would expect the same consideration from others.
If your employed somewhere part of your job is keeping the peace.
more...
palmerc2
Apr 25, 12:50 PM
Curiouser and curiouser.
If it's a fake, whoever did it did a pretty interesting job on it.
It looks plausible.
I mean we had:
iphone 3g
iphone 3gs
why not
iphone 4
iphone 4gs
Which would give incentive for people to go for the white one I guess.
then the 5 comes out later?
I feel calling the 2nd iPhone an iPhone 3G was dumb, but I guess they had no choice. They finally caught up so now it's the iPhone 4, which is the 4th generation.....I think that for now on it will be iPhone 5, 6, 7, 8, etc...
If it's a fake, whoever did it did a pretty interesting job on it.
It looks plausible.
I mean we had:
iphone 3g
iphone 3gs
why not
iphone 4
iphone 4gs
Which would give incentive for people to go for the white one I guess.
then the 5 comes out later?
I feel calling the 2nd iPhone an iPhone 3G was dumb, but I guess they had no choice. They finally caught up so now it's the iPhone 4, which is the 4th generation.....I think that for now on it will be iPhone 5, 6, 7, 8, etc...
skinned66
May 4, 04:05 AM
North American cellular providers are anti-consumer, nickel & diming scumbags? Say it ain't so...
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
more...
rdowns
Apr 13, 11:13 AM
Great, a shoot out on a plane loaded with innocent bystanders. :rolleyes:
There are already armed marshall on many flights in the US. WHen was the last time we had a shoot out in the sky? :rolleyes:
There are already armed marshall on many flights in the US. WHen was the last time we had a shoot out in the sky? :rolleyes:
pmz
Apr 16, 10:07 AM
A quick read through this thread is proof of why I normally don't bother reading or posting here.
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
more...
Anuba
Jan 12, 07:52 PM
i don't know i still who they plan to sell it ... sure there are mac enthusiasts (i would take it too when given as a present) but 10 million within a year without any real range of products ...
Did he really say 10 million within a year? Surely he jests. It's not even coming out in Europe until and if he's thinking 10 million in the US alone, um... that's like 15% of Cingular's customer base.
Did he really say 10 million within a year? Surely he jests. It's not even coming out in Europe until and if he's thinking 10 million in the US alone, um... that's like 15% of Cingular's customer base.
GQB
Apr 16, 12:05 AM
Yes and Palm smartphones and Blackberries never existed before the iPhone.
Name anything that did not build upon previous knowledge.
The 'Apple hasn't invented anything' meme is such nonsense.
Making things usable and desired is probably the biggest invention possible.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
Yeah... And how's that Curve doing?
Name anything that did not build upon previous knowledge.
The 'Apple hasn't invented anything' meme is such nonsense.
Making things usable and desired is probably the biggest invention possible.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
Yeah... And how's that Curve doing?
MacBoobsPro
Sep 12, 07:29 AM
So who is going to watch Snow White?
No... Bambi?
Or what about Lady and the Tramp?
:D
No... Bambi?
Or what about Lady and the Tramp?
:D
heehee
Apr 25, 06:58 PM
Please, indulge me. Thanks.
McDonald's be held responsible in the beating and the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible are 2 different things.
McDonald's be held responsible in the beating and the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible are 2 different things.
synth3tik
Jan 10, 05:17 PM
Thats something that should stay at the hackers convention. not CES and most definitely not MWSF.
illitrate23
Jan 12, 04:51 AM
MacBook:
skunk
Sep 12, 05:41 AM
i've a feeling that there's some wierd law that i heard of that all films being launched europe wide had to be launched simultanously in all languages. not sure if that's true or not but that might affect european films coming through (sorry bout the spelling, me no like words :) )Not that I have heard of.
ikir
Apr 30, 06:59 AM
Nooooo i loved the slider style and animation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment