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.
Watabou
Apr 25, 11:46 AM
That looks fine actually.
I'm fine with Apple not changing the overall design from the iPhone 4. It's already pretty sexy. This will just be like iPhone 3G ->iPhone 3Gs. They just make it better.
Now where can I pay?! :D
I'm fine with Apple not changing the overall design from the iPhone 4. It's already pretty sexy. This will just be like iPhone 3G ->iPhone 3Gs. They just make it better.
Now where can I pay?! :D
kuwisdelu
Apr 9, 05:21 PM
So what are the ton of features that apple introduced in 10.6?
I guess it depends what you call a "feature." They're not user-facing, and Apple didn't advertise them as features, but frankly I don't see how they're not features, even if they're under-the-hood. Anyway, here (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/)'s 22 pages worth of new and improved stuff.
I guess it depends what you call a "feature." They're not user-facing, and Apple didn't advertise them as features, but frankly I don't see how they're not features, even if they're under-the-hood. Anyway, here (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/)'s 22 pages worth of new and improved stuff.
wmmk
Nov 16, 04:49 PM
I will never buy an AMD computer again, especially in a laptop. AMDs are very hot processors and they require big fans(I learn that from my bro's Compaq), which make them thick and heavy.
It would be best for me if we could of kept PowerPC, developed a lower powerconsuming but stil powerful G5, or Xenon(chip in XBOX 360). But intel is still got...PPC for LIFE
i have to find it funny that you are among the ppc faithful and your username is imacintel.
The vast majority of everyday computer users don't know the difference between AMD and Intel, anyway.
I'd have to disagree with that.
AMD is more than capable of meeting Apple demand, by the way, considering that if Apple were to include an AMD option, that option would likely only represent a portion of an already small market share.. and more than likely in a low end 'budget' machine.
Apple has a low OS marketshare, but in terms of harware, they are one of the world's biggest manufacturers. AMD could not supply enough chips for a Mini Mac Mini type machine.
i think it would be a great idea for apple to merge with AMD
merge? you mean a partnership, or a full-fledged merge?
Perhaps we can choose between AMD and Intel? more options on the table.
That would mean we'd have to pay more for intel machines. intel is giving apple big discounts for not using AMD at all.
Apple just switched to Intel. Why would they go to AMD already?
because their users want the best. intel is great at the moment, but won't always be.
And one more thing....
Introducing the Macbook mini AMD edition!
AMD 4x4 processors at 2.6ghz
Nvidia 4x4 compatible chipset
AMD x1950 graphics w/ 512 memory
12in sxga screen
Superdrive
2 gigs memory standard
Liquid Nitrogen not included...
:p
that sucks, man! I want 16GB RAM in my lappy!
Maybe the AMD laptops are coming today :eek:
The store is currently down...
http://images.apple.com/r/store/backsoon/title_backsoon1.gif
it's up for me! (with nothing new)
It would be best for me if we could of kept PowerPC, developed a lower powerconsuming but stil powerful G5, or Xenon(chip in XBOX 360). But intel is still got...PPC for LIFE
i have to find it funny that you are among the ppc faithful and your username is imacintel.
The vast majority of everyday computer users don't know the difference between AMD and Intel, anyway.
I'd have to disagree with that.
AMD is more than capable of meeting Apple demand, by the way, considering that if Apple were to include an AMD option, that option would likely only represent a portion of an already small market share.. and more than likely in a low end 'budget' machine.
Apple has a low OS marketshare, but in terms of harware, they are one of the world's biggest manufacturers. AMD could not supply enough chips for a Mini Mac Mini type machine.
i think it would be a great idea for apple to merge with AMD
merge? you mean a partnership, or a full-fledged merge?
Perhaps we can choose between AMD and Intel? more options on the table.
That would mean we'd have to pay more for intel machines. intel is giving apple big discounts for not using AMD at all.
Apple just switched to Intel. Why would they go to AMD already?
because their users want the best. intel is great at the moment, but won't always be.
And one more thing....
Introducing the Macbook mini AMD edition!
AMD 4x4 processors at 2.6ghz
Nvidia 4x4 compatible chipset
AMD x1950 graphics w/ 512 memory
12in sxga screen
Superdrive
2 gigs memory standard
Liquid Nitrogen not included...
:p
that sucks, man! I want 16GB RAM in my lappy!
Maybe the AMD laptops are coming today :eek:
The store is currently down...
http://images.apple.com/r/store/backsoon/title_backsoon1.gif
it's up for me! (with nothing new)
more...
JAT
Apr 6, 04:50 PM
Considering it was released on April 5 (that's today), you either:
report; |; permalink
more...
Dragon Ball Z Broly Wallpaper.
Dragonball Z Broly Wallpaper
more...
roly dragonball
dragon ball z broly.
more...
Dragon Ball Z wallpapers
Dragon Ball Z wallpapers
more...
dragon ball z broly wallpaper.
Broly - Dragon Ball Z Movie
more...
dragon ball z broly wallpaper.
dragon ball z wallpapers hd.
more...
dragon ball z broly wallpaper.
art Dragon Ball Z Broly
dragon ball z broly super
MathiasMag
Jul 23, 12:54 AM
So with all the speak of how unacceptable this is. Who has actually decided that the iPhone 4 is so bad that they returned their phone AND bought another advanced phone? It seems to me that there are a lot of people who has never owned one that are critical, but most of those who actually has bought one are really happy with their phone.
more...
fehhkk
Apr 9, 04:01 PM
I hope windows gets rid of the dos command shell and don't have to rely on third party tools like cygwin. If W8 is unix based, it would be glorious.
kdarling
Oct 22, 04:26 PM
So you looked around and deemed them fixed or drove around and tested them?
Tested.
In my neighborhood, which is surrounded by hills and lots of state parks, there were several well known holes for all carriers.
Certain valleys, certain sections of road. Every local person knew exactly where they were, because cell service just disappeared in those places. That map was bang on.
Then a couple of years ago, several new towers finally got approved and built, and the dead spots disappeared. (Alas, the skyline isn't as pretty as it used to be, however.)
I can still see those old dead spots marked on that map. The website says it's been up since 2001. Looks like people often enter data, but don't take the time to go back and remove it, assuming there's a way to do that.
Tested.
In my neighborhood, which is surrounded by hills and lots of state parks, there were several well known holes for all carriers.
Certain valleys, certain sections of road. Every local person knew exactly where they were, because cell service just disappeared in those places. That map was bang on.
Then a couple of years ago, several new towers finally got approved and built, and the dead spots disappeared. (Alas, the skyline isn't as pretty as it used to be, however.)
I can still see those old dead spots marked on that map. The website says it's been up since 2001. Looks like people often enter data, but don't take the time to go back and remove it, assuming there's a way to do that.
more...
8CoreWhore
Apr 20, 02:47 AM
Objective Vs. Subjective.
Both have to be considered.
Pros and cons of both OS's. (objective)
What you like, how the OS "feels", your computing approach, etc. (subjective)
Chocolate Vs. Vanilla = Subjective.
Which one happens to be colder. = Objective.
Both have to be considered.
Pros and cons of both OS's. (objective)
What you like, how the OS "feels", your computing approach, etc. (subjective)
Chocolate Vs. Vanilla = Subjective.
Which one happens to be colder. = Objective.
Digitalclips
Mar 24, 09:24 PM
I have every one of those boxes! :)
more...
!� V �!
Apr 29, 06:09 PM
Why do we assume that the person using it is an idiot? What was so confusing about it? It takes two seconds to get use to it.
I think inverted scrolling has the potential to confuse people more and is probably harder to get use to.
I am guessing that you have never worked as tech support or with family members or relatives that are not tech savvy. ;):D
Remember :apple: produces products for the young and young at heart. ;)
Have you not noticed that Steve Jobs weak eyesight and the text in Mac OS growing ever so large. If it was my choice I would have tiny text on screen.
I think inverted scrolling has the potential to confuse people more and is probably harder to get use to.
I am guessing that you have never worked as tech support or with family members or relatives that are not tech savvy. ;):D
Remember :apple: produces products for the young and young at heart. ;)
Have you not noticed that Steve Jobs weak eyesight and the text in Mac OS growing ever so large. If it was my choice I would have tiny text on screen.
getalifemacfans
Jan 10, 02:40 AM
[QUOTE=getalifemacfans;4722504]
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
i have all of these on my iphone, albeit not out of the box....but if your serious about your iphone, you should be jailbreaking it anyway, the amount of apps that will make your phone YOURS is relentless and modding is the way to go.
not sure why you think its more difficult to call, set up contacts etc, strange comment....
Yeah i talked with some iphone users and they said compare to nokia/ sony its something more harder to organize(not the biggest problem but it can be anoying maybe).Maybe thats strange but if it is a fact then it is a fact.
Maybe the jailbraking makes it more complete.hehe.But think of this you must jailbrake it to make it function proper.its like those guys who tried to make a computer out of apple tv(the cheapest apple computer yet..lol).But it still can't record video with that camera and thats a minimum for todays cellies(think about all the fun you're missing)
But if apple release a second iphone with some bether specs i will forgive apple and buy it:)(and eat my own words..)
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
i have all of these on my iphone, albeit not out of the box....but if your serious about your iphone, you should be jailbreaking it anyway, the amount of apps that will make your phone YOURS is relentless and modding is the way to go.
not sure why you think its more difficult to call, set up contacts etc, strange comment....
Yeah i talked with some iphone users and they said compare to nokia/ sony its something more harder to organize(not the biggest problem but it can be anoying maybe).Maybe thats strange but if it is a fact then it is a fact.
Maybe the jailbraking makes it more complete.hehe.But think of this you must jailbrake it to make it function proper.its like those guys who tried to make a computer out of apple tv(the cheapest apple computer yet..lol).But it still can't record video with that camera and thats a minimum for todays cellies(think about all the fun you're missing)
But if apple release a second iphone with some bether specs i will forgive apple and buy it:)(and eat my own words..)
more...
MattSepeta
Apr 27, 01:41 PM
I appreciate that, I still disagree.
The medical and legal community still is not on your side
My birth certificate, my medical notes, and all my documentation is noted down as female, in medical terms I'm classed as a transsexual female, that's how we're referred to in scientific papers and similarly that's how I'm classified legally, bar the transsexual part as it has no legal significance.
There are many kinds of female/male, as I pointed out, your oversimplified view is simply not applicable to the reality we live in. Everyone has female/male aspects, picking the ones you think "count" is as I've said a few times, naive.
Ok, I'll agree with you on all counts. Still not sure where the argument is?
Never did I say that no one should "count" as you have mysteriously attributed to me...
The medical and legal community still is not on your side
My birth certificate, my medical notes, and all my documentation is noted down as female, in medical terms I'm classed as a transsexual female, that's how we're referred to in scientific papers and similarly that's how I'm classified legally, bar the transsexual part as it has no legal significance.
There are many kinds of female/male, as I pointed out, your oversimplified view is simply not applicable to the reality we live in. Everyone has female/male aspects, picking the ones you think "count" is as I've said a few times, naive.
Ok, I'll agree with you on all counts. Still not sure where the argument is?
Never did I say that no one should "count" as you have mysteriously attributed to me...
Northgrove
May 3, 02:26 PM
Fees for the data for that one device. But please don't start a "tethering is awesome v. tethering is against the rules" war here, there's plenty of other threads for that.
I'm not starting any war. I just think that their data fees should be set to cover the bandwidth usage. Who cares how many devices are used? Shouldn't the bytes count? To the operator it's just a stream of bytes. A stream of bytes that intensifies if you use more bandwidth, so the bandwidth used should be covered, not the devices.
I'm not starting any war. I just think that their data fees should be set to cover the bandwidth usage. Who cares how many devices are used? Shouldn't the bytes count? To the operator it's just a stream of bytes. A stream of bytes that intensifies if you use more bandwidth, so the bandwidth used should be covered, not the devices.
more...
Mac'nCheese
Apr 15, 02:49 PM
People who have made history have just been people and gay or straight have never come into it. What does it matter? A stand alone class in college on "gay studies" I would have no problem with. The requirement in public schools to teach gay history is bit absurd.
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
That answer is very similar to the posts in the thread about the video apple just did in support of the IT GETS BETTER campaign. Nobody is pitting the gay community against slavery. Nobody is saying lets stop teaching about women's rights and start instead with gay rights. They are just adding it. Why do people always have to make this weird connection?
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
That answer is very similar to the posts in the thread about the video apple just did in support of the IT GETS BETTER campaign. Nobody is pitting the gay community against slavery. Nobody is saying lets stop teaching about women's rights and start instead with gay rights. They are just adding it. Why do people always have to make this weird connection?
Geckotek
Dec 19, 09:03 PM
Also if Apple was going to release a CDMA phone why haven't they for countries like China where I is the dominate cell phone tech. Instead they went with the second place carrier who supports GSM.
CDMA is not even close to being the dominate tech in cellular in China.
Correct. Some numbers to back that up.
China Mobile (GSM) = 558M subscribers (World's largest carrier)
China Unicom (GSM) = 152M subscribers
Verizon (CDMA) = 92M subscribers
China Telecom (CDMA) = 85M subscribers
China Mobile (TD-SCDMA*) = 17M subscribers
*not the same CDMA Verizon or China Telecom uses so doesn't really count
As you can see, GSM subscribers in China FAR outweigh the CDMA subscribers. Also, Verizon has more CDMA subscribers than China (not counting TD-SCDMA since it's not the same tech).
However, China Mobile's GSM network is 2G. They are rapidly rolling out TD-SCDMA as their 3G replacement. This will eat away at the GSM subscriber base. This is also why China Unicom has the iPhone and China Mobile didn't. A lot of people wondered why the larger company didn't get it.
CDMA is not even close to being the dominate tech in cellular in China.
Correct. Some numbers to back that up.
China Mobile (GSM) = 558M subscribers (World's largest carrier)
China Unicom (GSM) = 152M subscribers
Verizon (CDMA) = 92M subscribers
China Telecom (CDMA) = 85M subscribers
China Mobile (TD-SCDMA*) = 17M subscribers
*not the same CDMA Verizon or China Telecom uses so doesn't really count
As you can see, GSM subscribers in China FAR outweigh the CDMA subscribers. Also, Verizon has more CDMA subscribers than China (not counting TD-SCDMA since it's not the same tech).
However, China Mobile's GSM network is 2G. They are rapidly rolling out TD-SCDMA as their 3G replacement. This will eat away at the GSM subscriber base. This is also why China Unicom has the iPhone and China Mobile didn't. A lot of people wondered why the larger company didn't get it.
more...
Rocksaurus
Oct 28, 06:30 PM
Yes, big parts of it come from the BSD world.
The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.
Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.
The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.
Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.
Michael383
May 3, 10:56 PM
Good commercial, better than the iPhone ones IMO.
iMacThere4Iam
Apr 8, 05:05 PM
Thanks for the perspective, BBEmployee. The truth is always in the details.
xappeal
Sep 12, 06:24 AM
Plus quicktime already has online features....
sherlockholmes
May 3, 11:54 PM
None of the above.
The commercials are cringe worthy when the potential you have is limited to web browsing.
The potential is limited only by you imagination.
The commercials are cringe worthy when the potential you have is limited to web browsing.
The potential is limited only by you imagination.
Rogzilla
Jan 10, 01:52 AM
You know what I want?
A small UMPC tablet, multitouch and pen input. Really, not a replacement computer but something like a large PDA. Something I can take with me, sit and draw/paint, write blogs at WIFI hotspots, make notes in meetings, and work on my various writings (screenplays, short stories, ect), then come home and sync it up with my iMac. A portable alternative for someone who already has a desktop.
I am still new to this whole Apple thing...love my iMac I got a year ago...but I have no idea what to expect.
A small UMPC tablet, multitouch and pen input. Really, not a replacement computer but something like a large PDA. Something I can take with me, sit and draw/paint, write blogs at WIFI hotspots, make notes in meetings, and work on my various writings (screenplays, short stories, ect), then come home and sync it up with my iMac. A portable alternative for someone who already has a desktop.
I am still new to this whole Apple thing...love my iMac I got a year ago...but I have no idea what to expect.
Rocketman
Oct 3, 01:58 PM
Just my opinion which has proven shockingly accurate this year.
MacBook Pro
I expect it to be updated within a month with a silent update when inventories of Yonah MacBook Pros are moderated. It wil have 802.11n installed but will not be supported until Airport super extreme or whatever is formally updated in November. Or perhaps on OSX 10.5 software update in 1-07.
MacBook
I expect it to stay Yonah until 1-07 when Steve wil show it as "one more thing". This is an Apple profit center and the market share leader. Maybe even colors at an upprice.
Mac-Mini 1-07 update to Merom and the declaration by Steve Jobs of 100% 64 bit accross the product line, a truly great achievement which will give him a legacy.
This will be the last "really impressive" processor upgrade for 2+ years into the future. Remaining improvements will be in features, communications, integration, sooftware, etc. The processor will become a gently updated commodity. This will be the first time ever, regular people will stop waiting for their computer to work, even when using multiple applications.
OSX wil be updaed to 10.5 of course as this is the central theme of 1-07. Related to this we will see updates of iApps to take advantage of new features and increased integration.
iPhone will be announced. Candy Bar format. Cingular as carrier with one of those rebranding agreements. Possibly even before Christmas.
There will be a separate media event for iTV and the iPod allscreen. That unit will be the center of a human's universe, Steve's dream of his lifetime. Phone/broadband, iPod, PDA, remote, OSX lite, everything except wiping your butt. Third parties will release that feature as a dongle. You will think you are Picard on ST-TNG.
Mac Pro 8-way. Dual Clovertown C2Q. Released.
X-serve 8-way. Dual Clovertown. Announced. The supercomputer reinvented.
802.11n networking. Surprise. Has been shipping since iMac Merom C2D.
Rocketman
MacBook Pro
I expect it to be updated within a month with a silent update when inventories of Yonah MacBook Pros are moderated. It wil have 802.11n installed but will not be supported until Airport super extreme or whatever is formally updated in November. Or perhaps on OSX 10.5 software update in 1-07.
MacBook
I expect it to stay Yonah until 1-07 when Steve wil show it as "one more thing". This is an Apple profit center and the market share leader. Maybe even colors at an upprice.
Mac-Mini 1-07 update to Merom and the declaration by Steve Jobs of 100% 64 bit accross the product line, a truly great achievement which will give him a legacy.
This will be the last "really impressive" processor upgrade for 2+ years into the future. Remaining improvements will be in features, communications, integration, sooftware, etc. The processor will become a gently updated commodity. This will be the first time ever, regular people will stop waiting for their computer to work, even when using multiple applications.
OSX wil be updaed to 10.5 of course as this is the central theme of 1-07. Related to this we will see updates of iApps to take advantage of new features and increased integration.
iPhone will be announced. Candy Bar format. Cingular as carrier with one of those rebranding agreements. Possibly even before Christmas.
There will be a separate media event for iTV and the iPod allscreen. That unit will be the center of a human's universe, Steve's dream of his lifetime. Phone/broadband, iPod, PDA, remote, OSX lite, everything except wiping your butt. Third parties will release that feature as a dongle. You will think you are Picard on ST-TNG.
Mac Pro 8-way. Dual Clovertown C2Q. Released.
X-serve 8-way. Dual Clovertown. Announced. The supercomputer reinvented.
802.11n networking. Surprise. Has been shipping since iMac Merom C2D.
Rocketman
door4
Sep 12, 08:12 AM
The link from Transporter 2 includes Movies+Trailers in the URL. As does the one below it, the other two include Games+Trailers.
Here's the full link from the Transporter 2 bit.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/inboundRedirect?omni-ch=Store+Front&omni-pg=Movie+Trailers&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fmoviesxml%2Fh%2Findex.xml
Clicking that link calls up a whitepage saying Itunes store being updated ( from the US)
Here's the full link from the Transporter 2 bit.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/inboundRedirect?omni-ch=Store+Front&omni-pg=Movie+Trailers&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fmoviesxml%2Fh%2Findex.xml
Clicking that link calls up a whitepage saying Itunes store being updated ( from the US)
No comments:
Post a Comment