Stella
Mar 24, 03:06 PM
Here's to another great 10 years!
OSX is the reason I switched for Linux.
I never really liked OS X until 10.5.
For me, the first usable version was Pather. Had great performance improvements over 10.2.
UI-wise, the brushed metal of 10.2 was a very low point!
OSX is the reason I switched for Linux.
I never really liked OS X until 10.5.
For me, the first usable version was Pather. Had great performance improvements over 10.2.
UI-wise, the brushed metal of 10.2 was a very low point!
vizkiz
Apr 15, 04:10 PM
So you have a humongous hole on the side?
Yes, for the volume up/down rocker switch. If yours doesn't have the volume rocker in the same spot, I think you may have a fake.
Yes, for the volume up/down rocker switch. If yours doesn't have the volume rocker in the same spot, I think you may have a fake.
arn
Oct 2, 04:32 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
lordonuthin
Apr 9, 07:59 PM
Looks like we are getting close to our likely max output of 270-280k ppd... Nice. Let's see if Apple wants to release new Mac pros soon now.
I'm doin' all the ppd I can without spending more money on hardware right now:D I would like to replace 5 machines with a new Mac Pro when they come out (4 really slow and my current Mac Pro). It's h**l waiting for Apple sometimes :eek: Hurry up Apple!! :apple:
What I want: Mac Pro with 12-16 cores, 24-32 threads, 2-3Ghz, 24 gigs of fast ddr3 ram, same case design outside plus usb 3.0, inside room for 3-4 2.5 inch ssd's in raid 0, 4 3.5 inch sata 2.0 or 3.0 (interchangable) and support for 3 GTX 295/480 cards.
Price $4-5k I'm not asking too much am I?
What I really want: Mac Pro with 64 cores, 256 threads, 3-4Ghz, 32 gigs of fast memristor (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2010/04/09/memristor-discovery-could-lead-to-faster-hpc-40088582/) memory ON CHIP, 64 gigs of ddr3 ram, and a few other things in an anodized aluminum case :p
I'm doin' all the ppd I can without spending more money on hardware right now:D I would like to replace 5 machines with a new Mac Pro when they come out (4 really slow and my current Mac Pro). It's h**l waiting for Apple sometimes :eek: Hurry up Apple!! :apple:
What I want: Mac Pro with 12-16 cores, 24-32 threads, 2-3Ghz, 24 gigs of fast ddr3 ram, same case design outside plus usb 3.0, inside room for 3-4 2.5 inch ssd's in raid 0, 4 3.5 inch sata 2.0 or 3.0 (interchangable) and support for 3 GTX 295/480 cards.
Price $4-5k I'm not asking too much am I?
What I really want: Mac Pro with 64 cores, 256 threads, 3-4Ghz, 32 gigs of fast memristor (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2010/04/09/memristor-discovery-could-lead-to-faster-hpc-40088582/) memory ON CHIP, 64 gigs of ddr3 ram, and a few other things in an anodized aluminum case :p
more...
Mogenshu
Oct 3, 12:23 PM
It was right after macworld (actually the same day) that i bought my 20" imac, intel version. I still love the machine to death although its time to upgrade my ram to 2gig and revel over the 24" version of my machine. I'm really hoping macworld gives at least more info on the itv with some better features and specs. I don't think it will be released there but here's to hoping.
MacSedgley
Aug 8, 01:05 PM
I managed scrape together enough money together for a 20 incher and a mini last year (�1000). They gave me the wrong box (a 23") which was the nicest thing thats ever happened to me.
Its a lovely screen, but the colours are all over the place (and people should be very wary when using front row with the macbook linked to a cinema - for some reason it doesnt go to sleep, and this could lead to some nasty screen burn.)
A decent screen is a big investment - you would expect a good LCD to last you at least 5 years if your paying a grand for it. At the moment, Dell's is much better value in my book, even though it is hideously ugly.
Anyone tried the new NECs?
Its a lovely screen, but the colours are all over the place (and people should be very wary when using front row with the macbook linked to a cinema - for some reason it doesnt go to sleep, and this could lead to some nasty screen burn.)
A decent screen is a big investment - you would expect a good LCD to last you at least 5 years if your paying a grand for it. At the moment, Dell's is much better value in my book, even though it is hideously ugly.
Anyone tried the new NECs?
more...
Amazing Iceman
Dec 13, 08:16 PM
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (BlackBerry; Opera Mini/5.1.21052/22.401; U; en) Presto/2.5.25 Version/10.54)
And why in the world would they launch after Christmas. Either do it before or wait until people recover financially :)
Yeah, that would be a complete disaster. Everyone knows after christmas, people are broke and unwilling to spend a dime until hopefully April.
And why in the world would they launch after Christmas. Either do it before or wait until people recover financially :)
Yeah, that would be a complete disaster. Everyone knows after christmas, people are broke and unwilling to spend a dime until hopefully April.
ghostlyorb
Apr 30, 07:57 AM
I'm glad they're listening to what people want though!
more...
Synthion
Mar 7, 05:38 AM
Apple isn't the origin of all their ideas, some, but not all. Look at it this way.
Long Layered Bob Hairstyles
more...
Short medium layered
gorgeousninja
Apr 17, 04:15 PM
Under sharia law a woman who was raped would need like 9 witnesses to prove the man guilty. And her testimony in other cases would be half that of a man's.
Sharia law isn't a very good thing to bring up ;)
Indeed I would hate to live under such a system...
but, I do think that it is worth reminding kids who smugly proclaim that they are involved in illegal activities because of skewed morals and misguided self-entitlement that there are penalties and consequences for such actions... don't you?
Sharia law isn't a very good thing to bring up ;)
Indeed I would hate to live under such a system...
but, I do think that it is worth reminding kids who smugly proclaim that they are involved in illegal activities because of skewed morals and misguided self-entitlement that there are penalties and consequences for such actions... don't you?
more...
Aeolius
Sep 9, 03:16 PM
The chart topping hip hop rapper star who used a network hurricane fundraiser to charge "George Bush doesn't care about black people" was loudly and lustily booed during last night's NFL kickoff show.
short hair blunt bang layered
more...
Picture For Short Layered
Layered Hairstyles For Short
more...
Layered long hair styles
Layered hairstyles
more...
Hairstyles for Girls 2010
1984 short layered hairstyle
short layered hair styles
Vidder
Dec 6, 06:07 PM
I like Black Ops multi-player the best out of all the CODs etc. It seems that fixed up a lot of outstanding gameplay mechanics and issues. Much less frustrating than MOW2.
what is your primary 'go to' kit? shot gun? or running and stabbing? that seems to be the only way to play this game....this game is for kids.
what is your primary 'go to' kit? shot gun? or running and stabbing? that seems to be the only way to play this game....this game is for kids.
more...
hob
Jan 9, 01:22 PM
This is getting unbearable now. It's all happened, and i don't know what! Such a test of our resolve and patience...
How much longer is the wait usually?
MA.
Was this your idea? I'll kill ya :p
It's normally up pretty snappy. That being said I've normally got my head in all their new sites and stuff to keep me happy...
I accidentally just went on BBC News... spoilt one surprise for myself :(
How much longer is the wait usually?
MA.
Was this your idea? I'll kill ya :p
It's normally up pretty snappy. That being said I've normally got my head in all their new sites and stuff to keep me happy...
I accidentally just went on BBC News... spoilt one surprise for myself :(
killuminati
Sep 7, 10:39 PM
I can never have any respect or even try to understand for any one to say "******* the police thats how we treat 'em" Now, is that not bad boy enough.
It's a bit deeper then that though, he says
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
It's a bit deeper then that though, he says
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
more...
jonharris200
Jan 5, 04:23 PM
If I recall correctly (prob. not) Apple use to have the keynote live on TV that people could pick up with old c-band sat. recievers. What ever happend to that?
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
-aggie-
Jul 21, 10:56 AM
Well, if they treat their customers this way then what do they expect?
Imagine an icecream stand, selling icecream cones "revolutionarily" cylindrical in shape and everyone's icecream fell out the bottom. Then, they remedy this by going "ok, we'll give you all a small piece of paper to glue to the bottom that will sort of fix the problem."
I know. Damn you, Apple, for giving me a better phone than my 3G!! Damn you!!!
Imagine an icecream stand, selling icecream cones "revolutionarily" cylindrical in shape and everyone's icecream fell out the bottom. Then, they remedy this by going "ok, we'll give you all a small piece of paper to glue to the bottom that will sort of fix the problem."
I know. Damn you, Apple, for giving me a better phone than my 3G!! Damn you!!!
more...
DFDureiko
Oct 18, 09:10 AM
Being a die hard Apple/Mac guy, it killed me when Apple went to ATT, as I was Verizon and really liked their service. a week and a half ago, my phone failed, one of our lines was out of contract, so I finally got a 3GS 16gig. it's so amazing (to me, i'm new:) that I guess I'll stick with it, most of the time I'm in the country (rural CT and FL) and have had no dropped calls. From this thread I'm guessing dropped calls are a problem in metropolitan areas?
If I could have had some clear answer from Verizon, even a "maybe by midsummer" I'd have kept patiently waiting. But all the Verizon reps, both stores and call center, said "I've heard NOTHING of us getting an iPhone"
Just my luck if it comes out in March, and I'm locked into ATT:)
One other thing I find strange seeing that ATT and Verizon are the two largest cell company's in the US, is why still, There is no ATT coverage in the western states (ie Montana, Wyoming etc) only Verizon? any idea why ATT is not expanding out there after all these years?
Dan
If I could have had some clear answer from Verizon, even a "maybe by midsummer" I'd have kept patiently waiting. But all the Verizon reps, both stores and call center, said "I've heard NOTHING of us getting an iPhone"
Just my luck if it comes out in March, and I'm locked into ATT:)
One other thing I find strange seeing that ATT and Verizon are the two largest cell company's in the US, is why still, There is no ATT coverage in the western states (ie Montana, Wyoming etc) only Verizon? any idea why ATT is not expanding out there after all these years?
Dan
hugodrax
Jan 12, 03:04 PM
Bloggers are not professionals anyways.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 7, 04:37 PM
http://www.original-gamer.com/og/images/shogun2boxcover.jpg
can nit wait to play on bootcamp
can nit wait to play on bootcamp
DewGuy1999
Apr 11, 09:03 PM
can't understand why it doesn't let me post the right pictures :confused:
They look exactly like the original Apple ones though
You've got double http://
They look exactly like the original Apple ones though
You've got double http://
chrono1081
Apr 29, 01:58 PM
Come on Open GL 3... come to daddy.
I don't understand why people are panicking about the iPad thing. The iPad has some nice features people enjoyed so they are bringing it to the desktop. Its not like you have to USE those features but if it makes computing more enjoyable why not use it?
It'll be nice for those of us who do real work on our computers all day long to have some of these conveniences. For some reason though whenever Apple simplifies something people start crying "Apple doesn't care about the pro users anymore!" (Even though in reality of the person were truly a "pro user" they would welcome anything that helps them get their job done more efficiently).
I don't understand why people are panicking about the iPad thing. The iPad has some nice features people enjoyed so they are bringing it to the desktop. Its not like you have to USE those features but if it makes computing more enjoyable why not use it?
It'll be nice for those of us who do real work on our computers all day long to have some of these conveniences. For some reason though whenever Apple simplifies something people start crying "Apple doesn't care about the pro users anymore!" (Even though in reality of the person were truly a "pro user" they would welcome anything that helps them get their job done more efficiently).
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.
tristangage
Apr 21, 02:35 PM
I still think the "thanks" system like at RedFlagDeals.com is a better representation of what a good "point" system looks like. Certain people are very helpful in answering other people's questions or providing useful information. When someone answers your question or provides a technical explanation (or even a snappy comeback or an informed opinion) that people find insightful, they can "thank" the user for the post. Everyone who sees the post then can quickly see that this post has been helpful to others ("6 people thanked Mad Mac Maniac for this post"). And the cumulative total stays with the user, so you can also see at a quick glance that this user has a reputation for being helpful ("Mad Mac Maniac has been thanked 4,134 times.")
I prefer this idea too. I would rate your post positively if it hadn't been disabled :p
I prefer this idea too. I would rate your post positively if it hadn't been disabled :p
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 12:50 AM
Nice. Too bad some kid is going to have $300 docked from his pay...
No comments:
Post a Comment