ezekielrage_99
Jan 9, 04:55 PM
These are my predictions:
iPhone 2.0:
3G model
16gb Storage
Also Released in Australia
iPhone will be release in Australia within the next month (end of Feb by the latest) only on the Telstra network. Unfortunately Telstra has exclusive rights for the iPhone, so the product will be awesome (e.g. being Apple) but the service provider will be crap....
At my work we got a demo of the iPhone from Telstra for development reasons, we will be supplying data for a few of the services for the iPhone in Australia.
iPhone 2.0:
3G model
16gb Storage
Also Released in Australia
iPhone will be release in Australia within the next month (end of Feb by the latest) only on the Telstra network. Unfortunately Telstra has exclusive rights for the iPhone, so the product will be awesome (e.g. being Apple) but the service provider will be crap....
At my work we got a demo of the iPhone from Telstra for development reasons, we will be supplying data for a few of the services for the iPhone in Australia.
arn
Apr 27, 03:19 AM
fwiw, here's some data from this news thread: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/26/android-jumps-past-ios-in-overall-u-s-smartphone-usage/
The top rated posts:
Macman1993
13 hours ago at 12:07 pm
Some will be bothered about IOS not being the most dominant. I personally don't care, I just want the best mobile OS.
Rating: 15 Positives / 2 Negatives
brendu
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics. I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Rating: 12 Positives / 0 Negatives
komodrone
13 hours ago at 12:39 pm
"...in total penetration" THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. yeah I signed up for an account just to post this.
Rating: 10 Positives / 0 Negatives
Eddyisgreat
13 hours ago at 12:15 pm
If the iPhone were buy one get two free as well then I bet those numbers would be different :D
Rating: 9 Positives / 1 Negatives
VanMac
13 hours ago at 12:09 pm
Competition is good :) Keeps Apple on their toes Don't need another MS Monopoly.......
Rating: 12 Positives / 4 Negatives
Slix
13 hours ago at 12:14 pm
iPhones are still better.
Rating: 12 Positives / 5 Negatives
supmango
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
I really hope that Apple sees trends like this and realizes it's time to change their game plan. No more once a year phones. Time to kick the innovation level up a few notches. Time for over the air OS updates, over the air app installs, wireless syncing and everything else Android has offered for some time now.
iOS does over the air app installs. Other than that, yes I agree that Apple needs to do those things. Oh, and I use Android because it's the only option on my carrier (its the least repulsive option anyway). But it sucks, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. I think the only reason it is seeing growth like it is is because of cheap hardware, and, as in my case, being the only real option on certain networks.
Rating: 6 Positives / 0 Negatives
Millah
2 hours ago at 11:13 pm
inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
The funny thing is, almost every single Android owner I know are people who could care less about "smartphones," really don't know much about technology, and only bought one because it was very cheap or free when they upgraded, and they were told that it could "run apps like the iPhone." These are people who had cheap free phones before they upgraded. And realistically, the majority of people are like that. But when we compare the industry profit percentages, it paints a much different picture. Which goes to show that market share is irrelevant especially in the cell phone business where cheap free phones are dominant. Its going to be interesting when Apple tries to go after this segment. I'm sure they'll come up with something clever.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
Michael Scrip
12 hours ago at 01:13 pm
Deceptive Report... Let's not forget, Apple iOS encompasses more then just iPhones. If you included the iPad and iPod Touch which both run Apple iOS then Apple's market share is still ahead of Android.
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline. Here's why... Apple's smartphone is called "the iPhone" And then you've got "Android" which is a tons of phones from many manufacturers. When comparing smartphone numbers... it's the iPhone vs. many Android phones. You're right... if you wanna have a platform battle... iOS vs Android... you'd have to include iPods and iPads. But this is a comparison of phones...
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
righttime
13 hours ago at 12:27 pm
Wow. A platform that is available on all four major carriers and has dozens of phones, passed the iPhone (which *just* became available on its second carrier) in overall usage. So I guess Google should be patting themselves on the back for this historic achievement.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
There isn't a huge amount of activity, but take it for what it's worth. Also, I think this was before we fixed the IE issue. It should work in IE now.
arn
The top rated posts:
Macman1993
13 hours ago at 12:07 pm
Some will be bothered about IOS not being the most dominant. I personally don't care, I just want the best mobile OS.
Rating: 15 Positives / 2 Negatives
brendu
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics. I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Rating: 12 Positives / 0 Negatives
komodrone
13 hours ago at 12:39 pm
"...in total penetration" THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. yeah I signed up for an account just to post this.
Rating: 10 Positives / 0 Negatives
Eddyisgreat
13 hours ago at 12:15 pm
If the iPhone were buy one get two free as well then I bet those numbers would be different :D
Rating: 9 Positives / 1 Negatives
VanMac
13 hours ago at 12:09 pm
Competition is good :) Keeps Apple on their toes Don't need another MS Monopoly.......
Rating: 12 Positives / 4 Negatives
Slix
13 hours ago at 12:14 pm
iPhones are still better.
Rating: 12 Positives / 5 Negatives
supmango
13 hours ago at 12:12 pm
I really hope that Apple sees trends like this and realizes it's time to change their game plan. No more once a year phones. Time to kick the innovation level up a few notches. Time for over the air OS updates, over the air app installs, wireless syncing and everything else Android has offered for some time now.
iOS does over the air app installs. Other than that, yes I agree that Apple needs to do those things. Oh, and I use Android because it's the only option on my carrier (its the least repulsive option anyway). But it sucks, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. I think the only reason it is seeing growth like it is is because of cheap hardware, and, as in my case, being the only real option on certain networks.
Rating: 6 Positives / 0 Negatives
Millah
2 hours ago at 11:13 pm
inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
The funny thing is, almost every single Android owner I know are people who could care less about "smartphones," really don't know much about technology, and only bought one because it was very cheap or free when they upgraded, and they were told that it could "run apps like the iPhone." These are people who had cheap free phones before they upgraded. And realistically, the majority of people are like that. But when we compare the industry profit percentages, it paints a much different picture. Which goes to show that market share is irrelevant especially in the cell phone business where cheap free phones are dominant. Its going to be interesting when Apple tries to go after this segment. I'm sure they'll come up with something clever.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
Michael Scrip
12 hours ago at 01:13 pm
Deceptive Report... Let's not forget, Apple iOS encompasses more then just iPhones. If you included the iPad and iPod Touch which both run Apple iOS then Apple's market share is still ahead of Android.
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline. Here's why... Apple's smartphone is called "the iPhone" And then you've got "Android" which is a tons of phones from many manufacturers. When comparing smartphone numbers... it's the iPhone vs. many Android phones. You're right... if you wanna have a platform battle... iOS vs Android... you'd have to include iPods and iPads. But this is a comparison of phones...
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
righttime
13 hours ago at 12:27 pm
Wow. A platform that is available on all four major carriers and has dozens of phones, passed the iPhone (which *just* became available on its second carrier) in overall usage. So I guess Google should be patting themselves on the back for this historic achievement.
Rating: 5 Positives / 0 Negatives
There isn't a huge amount of activity, but take it for what it's worth. Also, I think this was before we fixed the IE issue. It should work in IE now.
arn
Donz0r
Jan 5, 02:56 PM
Thank You!!! I always want to do this! Also, this year I have an appointment right in the middle of the keynote! You guys rock! IMO, this is The Best way to discover the new products, the way it was meant to be.
Snowy_River
Nov 18, 05:32 PM
I don't see why AMD and Intel OSX laptops can't live together... We all see the windoze users have their choice of AMD or Intel, dual cores or single cores... why can't Apple/OSX?
As for the G5 ibook/powerbook, well judging by the way the G5 iMac was built, then frankly, I don't see why a G5 laptop could not of been built. The current line of iMacs practically IS a notebook on a vertical stand so they could of put it in a notebook form. Besides, how do we know the G5 iBook does not exist?
I mean besides from the fact that "unless Mr. Jobs says it exists, it does not exist" logic. :p
Come on folks, there has to be a LOT of stuff in the R&D labs of Apple that we will never know of or see because of a change of the Master Plan of Steve Jobs:
"Don't exist" is a reference to their production status. I think that we can be pretty sure that there has never been (and will never be) a G5 PowerBook or iBook in production. As to what they had in their labs, who knows. They may (and probably do) have OS X running on every type of processor that they can get their hands on, right now. They may have tablets and PDAs and Phones, oh my! But that's the territory for rumors and speculation, and that's not what we're about here... oh, wait... ;)
It may well be true that Apple could have produced a G5 PowerBook following the design model used for the iMac, but you'd end up with a PowerBook that was many inches thick (the current 17" C2D iMac is 6.8 inches thick), versus the previous G4 PowerBook, which was a mere 1 inch thick. It would never have sold in the quantities that would have justified producing it.
As for Intel and AMD together, sure, eventually, maybe. The reason that it would be a mistake at this point is that Apple has a relatively small market, and so it needs to keep a clean product line. Muddying the water of what Apple is offering would only hurt Apple sales, at this point.
As for the G5 ibook/powerbook, well judging by the way the G5 iMac was built, then frankly, I don't see why a G5 laptop could not of been built. The current line of iMacs practically IS a notebook on a vertical stand so they could of put it in a notebook form. Besides, how do we know the G5 iBook does not exist?
I mean besides from the fact that "unless Mr. Jobs says it exists, it does not exist" logic. :p
Come on folks, there has to be a LOT of stuff in the R&D labs of Apple that we will never know of or see because of a change of the Master Plan of Steve Jobs:
"Don't exist" is a reference to their production status. I think that we can be pretty sure that there has never been (and will never be) a G5 PowerBook or iBook in production. As to what they had in their labs, who knows. They may (and probably do) have OS X running on every type of processor that they can get their hands on, right now. They may have tablets and PDAs and Phones, oh my! But that's the territory for rumors and speculation, and that's not what we're about here... oh, wait... ;)
It may well be true that Apple could have produced a G5 PowerBook following the design model used for the iMac, but you'd end up with a PowerBook that was many inches thick (the current 17" C2D iMac is 6.8 inches thick), versus the previous G4 PowerBook, which was a mere 1 inch thick. It would never have sold in the quantities that would have justified producing it.
As for Intel and AMD together, sure, eventually, maybe. The reason that it would be a mistake at this point is that Apple has a relatively small market, and so it needs to keep a clean product line. Muddying the water of what Apple is offering would only hurt Apple sales, at this point.
georgethomas
Apr 16, 11:56 AM
i guess everyone wants a piece of the pie
wouldn't be surprised to see competitors are going after it
the law of big number suggests that a small fraction of the number can lead to a big sales. that is my opinion
wouldn't be surprised to see competitors are going after it
the law of big number suggests that a small fraction of the number can lead to a big sales. that is my opinion
MSM Hobbes
Mar 25, 10:55 PM
So,,, ok,,, an OS that is 10 years,,, that is like what, in human years? Hmmmm... :cool:
Congrats and warm thanks to all at Apple (and your friends and families ;)) that helped create, nurture, and bring this wonderful s/w to us all.
:apple:
Congrats and warm thanks to all at Apple (and your friends and families ;)) that helped create, nurture, and bring this wonderful s/w to us all.
:apple:
idanchez
Apr 15, 05:36 PM
I hope this is a fake.What is the long slot on the side? Is it a spot for a memory card?
I think this is for the Volume Button... not memory card slot... It will probably look like the new iPad volume button.
I think this is for the Volume Button... not memory card slot... It will probably look like the new iPad volume button.
PeteyKohut
Jan 15, 04:05 PM
This has to be one of the worst Macworld keynotes ever....and there were a couple of stinkers. I mean....where are the new MacBook Pros? Where is a new Mini? Where is an AppleTV with an OPTICAL DRIVE! Nowhere to be seen. What do we get? A new laptop where they charge us more and give us less. I mean...when was the last time Apple shipped a computer without Firewire??? Please! Hell...they should have saved the Mac Pro announcement for today, to add SOMETHING to the awful show. Maybe then my portfolio wouldn't have taken the dive it did. Come on, Steve, is this the best you can do? Where are these new Apple/Intel devices??? My biggest disappointment is the lack of Blu-Ray though. I mean, no new iPod? No new iPhone. I mean....I don't need anything HUGE, just some storage increases. Bad....bad bad bad.
turtlebud
Aug 7, 03:54 PM
price drop = good, improved specs = good, but i think they could have done better. i see the ACD as a premium monitor so I think they should at least be comparable a similar dell (in terms of specs). If you're looking for a 30", then the ACD is now a very good deal ($1999 vs $2149 and the specs are a little better on the ACD). Personally, I'm looking into the 23/24" monitor (though I wouldn't mind the 30". Here's what I see:
Dell - 24", 0.270 mm, 450 cd/m�, 1000:1, 16 ms, $879 (on sale right now for $747)
Apple - 23", 0.258 mm, 400 cd/m�, 700:1, 14 ms, $999 ($899 through edu store)
The price drop and improved specs are good, but it's too bad that they don't match or exceed the dell monitors in all categories - maybe I'm just expecting too much. Oh well, a guy can dream right?
Dell - 24", 0.270 mm, 450 cd/m�, 1000:1, 16 ms, $879 (on sale right now for $747)
Apple - 23", 0.258 mm, 400 cd/m�, 700:1, 14 ms, $999 ($899 through edu store)
The price drop and improved specs are good, but it's too bad that they don't match or exceed the dell monitors in all categories - maybe I'm just expecting too much. Oh well, a guy can dream right?
gugy
Nov 16, 12:39 PM
this is totally bull. Apple is in no position to stab Intel in their back at this time. Plus, Intel is being very reliable delivering on schedule the chips Apple needs. Maybe in few years if their relationship deteriorate I might consider seeing Apple moving into AMD. But it is not happening anytime soon.
maclaptop
Apr 16, 06:26 AM
Let us not compare Apples to turds.
Phoenix Bird Tattoos have
Phoenix Bird Tattoos phoenix
Tags : phoenix bird tattoos
phoenix bird tattoos. phoenix
Sweet Bird Tattoos For Girls
ird tattooed on the skin.
Tag :phoenix bird tattoos
Phoenix Bird Pictures
Kenya
Oct 3, 01:10 PM
There should have been an option for MacBook Pro chip/case/features update. I would have voted for that one.
dhc
Sep 12, 02:55 AM
iPod shuffle discontinued entirely
I can't see this happening - not without an imediate replacement (though this may be achieved by significantly reducing the cost of the Nano?)
I've been wrong before though.
I can't see this happening - not without an imediate replacement (though this may be achieved by significantly reducing the cost of the Nano?)
I've been wrong before though.
mattwolfmatt
Sep 28, 04:57 PM
If this is the iPhone of houses, I guess my house is the Zune of houses. Or perhaps a 1st Gen nano . . . old, small, and ugly.
VideoFreek
May 4, 03:37 PM
Why does a question about a potentially dangerous object and your provisions for its safe keeping threaten you? The doctor is not playing politics, hes practicing good preventative medicine.Sorry, during which year of medical school do doctors receive gun safety training? How many hours of coursework on home safety do they complete? The typical MD is no more qualified to discuss these matters than any bozo on the street with more than an ounce of common sense. If they really want to help their patients child-proof their homes effectively, providing a helpful checklist would far more effective than interrogating parents.
Rocketman
Oct 29, 10:58 AM
We're talking about information here. It has no intrinsic value.
I do believe you are inherently wrong here.
Information is stored on artifacts (things). Therefore the combination of the artifact and its highly value added information has yet more "intrinsic" value.
What has more value in stopping cars, a red light or a blue light. They are both lights. They only emit different information.
Dictionary.com:
"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent."
Rocketman
I do believe you are inherently wrong here.
Information is stored on artifacts (things). Therefore the combination of the artifact and its highly value added information has yet more "intrinsic" value.
What has more value in stopping cars, a red light or a blue light. They are both lights. They only emit different information.
Dictionary.com:
"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent."
Rocketman
Shannighan
Jan 15, 04:45 PM
SJ announced 4 m iPhones sold. I believe I read some days ago that 5 m have been expected??
Maybe I'm wrong. But if not, we learned today that iPhone and Apple TV aren't doing well. Apple should refocus on their core business before to many Mac customers leave disappointed.
for a single phone to sell 4million, i think thats amazing!
rim only has 20% more smartphone holding and think of all the versions that it has and how many years has the blackberry been around? atleast 5, problaby way more then that.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if not, we learned today that iPhone and Apple TV aren't doing well. Apple should refocus on their core business before to many Mac customers leave disappointed.
for a single phone to sell 4million, i think thats amazing!
rim only has 20% more smartphone holding and think of all the versions that it has and how many years has the blackberry been around? atleast 5, problaby way more then that.
davidcarswell
Jul 22, 09:58 AM
Untrue. The iPhone is the only phone affected this way. Apple implying a lie doesn't make it true.
Guess we believe what we wanna believe-I have yet to see one iphone personally drop bars - even trying to make it happen-mine and 9 other iphone users have all desperately tried to make this attenuation BS happen - well we honestly gave up-
All of us ENJOYING the best phone ever-
Honestly I am truly starting to wonder if these claims are out and out LIES as apposed to just enduser errors-and a small bunch of Debby downers.... well maybe it's all 3
RETURN YOUR iPHONES!!!
get your money back nagging
Guess we believe what we wanna believe-I have yet to see one iphone personally drop bars - even trying to make it happen-mine and 9 other iphone users have all desperately tried to make this attenuation BS happen - well we honestly gave up-
All of us ENJOYING the best phone ever-
Honestly I am truly starting to wonder if these claims are out and out LIES as apposed to just enduser errors-and a small bunch of Debby downers.... well maybe it's all 3
RETURN YOUR iPHONES!!!
get your money back nagging
Eraserhead
Apr 16, 04:21 PM
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know.
What if you don't know any role models (e.g. you are poor?)
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know. Teaching "gay history" is more about promoting homosexuality than helping children.
I would presume that "gay history" just means that when you cover Leonardo da Vinci you point out that he was gay.
What if you don't know any role models (e.g. you are poor?)
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know. Teaching "gay history" is more about promoting homosexuality than helping children.
I would presume that "gay history" just means that when you cover Leonardo da Vinci you point out that he was gay.
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.
cayley
Apr 4, 03:25 PM
Yes, if my Xbox was stolen, I'd definitely want it back -- probably enough so that I wouldn't care what MS did on my behalf. But as it didn't happen to me, I can be more rational about this.
I don't think MS should give out this information to end customers. It would create way too many loopholes and all XBox Live user's privacy would potentially be compromised. Now if cops were to call MS and say "We're investigating a stolen XBox," that id tracking system you described comes in very handy.
I don't think MS should give out this information to end customers. It would create way too many loopholes and all XBox Live user's privacy would potentially be compromised. Now if cops were to call MS and say "We're investigating a stolen XBox," that id tracking system you described comes in very handy.
spazzcat
Mar 28, 06:54 PM
Before it was sooo.... hard. My wrist still hurts from dragging one single file to the Applications folder. Oh, and I just love having to pay sales tax on the apps. :rolleyes:
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
So they shouldn't be able to make the rules for their awards on their platform???
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
So they shouldn't be able to make the rules for their awards on their platform???
Brocktoon
Jan 10, 12:06 AM
Macbook Pro update: announced 1/15, shipping 1/15 :)
Macbook Nano: announced 1/15, shipping in 6-8 weeks :mad:
Macbook Nano: announced 1/15, shipping in 6-8 weeks :mad:
Yamcha
May 2, 09:40 AM
I find it hilarious that Steve Jobs claimed Apple was not tracking users, but now all of a sudden we find Location tracking being completely removed from this version of iOS, that is honestly something that annoyes me..
No comments:
Post a Comment