MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 29, 01:26 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
Mal
Jul 25, 12:03 AM
I'd be worried about that exept one incontrovertible fact. Steve Jobs has more creative spark in his left pinky than M$ does in it whole genetic tree.
I think that's the idea. The implication I got was that they were going to give Microsoft a generous stretch of rope and let them hang themselves.
jW
I think that's the idea. The implication I got was that they were going to give Microsoft a generous stretch of rope and let them hang themselves.
jW
Padraig
Jan 10, 05:41 PM
"In college, I built small TV jammers. I'd go to the one dorm that had a color TV, sit in the back, in the dark, and tune in my jammer. The screen got messed up, not totally but enough to bother everyone. Without any plan, a friend in the front row, who knew what was going on (I hope he did) whacked the TV. I instantly turned the jammer off and the TV worked fine."
tattoo fonts and lettering.
lettering fonts. tattoo
best cursive tattoo fonts
Fancy Tattoo Fonts fonts for
Tattoo Fonts, Tattoo Lettering
Anuba
Jan 12, 05:44 PM
Someone asked you what you were hoping for, and that's it? You call it not revolutionary, but you can't give a single idea of what you think revolutionary is? :confused:
Ideally, a revolutionary product is a completely new concept, something nobody thought of before. If all the iPhone mockups out there had missed the mark, the iPhone would be revolutionary, but there were quite a few that were based on the idea of a huge display and no keys. The iPhone is a mishmash of existing concepts that have been refined, polished and rolled into one. While the multi-touch screen is a milestone of sorts, other aspects of the iPhone are very yesterday. The modest memory, for one, and for another the absence of 3G which is somewhat of a shocker - 3G has been a staple of top-of-the-line phones for years now.
Did I miss the part of the keynote where Steve said this was aimed at the business market? :eek:
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
Ideally, a revolutionary product is a completely new concept, something nobody thought of before. If all the iPhone mockups out there had missed the mark, the iPhone would be revolutionary, but there were quite a few that were based on the idea of a huge display and no keys. The iPhone is a mishmash of existing concepts that have been refined, polished and rolled into one. While the multi-touch screen is a milestone of sorts, other aspects of the iPhone are very yesterday. The modest memory, for one, and for another the absence of 3G which is somewhat of a shocker - 3G has been a staple of top-of-the-line phones for years now.
Did I miss the part of the keynote where Steve said this was aimed at the business market? :eek:
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
rdowns
Apr 16, 04:20 PM
Your only role models should be the ones your personally know. Teaching "gay history" is more about promoting homosexuality than helping children.
I can't help but feel that your posts come from way inside the closet. Why do gay people frighten you so?
I can't help but feel that your posts come from way inside the closet. Why do gay people frighten you so?
kdarling
Apr 16, 06:36 PM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
Chip NoVaMac
Mar 13, 12:15 PM
Niche? Really? So all the iPhones and iPads sold around the world and they're still niche? What's that niche called? the whole market?!
There are 'Droid lovers out there.. with many not liking the closed "eco-system" that Apple imposes for apps; and the selective "censorship" in apps or how a device like the ATV2 won't show Gay&Lesbian genre in the Netflix app on the ATV2.
In the end for the iPhone it seems that it has a 30% market share according to data I found. The iPad is harder to peg down since the numbers can be split between eReaders, tablets, netbooks, and even notebooks.
Once it all shakes out, Apple IMO would be happy with 20-30% across all their platforms. The revenue stream from iTunes will keep them very happy.
I disagree. The click wheel made it easier to use, as it was intuitive (scrolling clockwise down, anticlockwise up), and was also easily used inside a pocket [find the clickwheel and you're go]. The clickwheel has been hailed as a masterstroke for Apple; getting rid of the plethora of buttons on MP3 players and replacing it with a sleek interface. I find it the most annoying part of using my iPhone is that I have to look at the screen to use the controls.
+1
The click wheel in my first iPod won me over... though at least with compatible headsets with in-line buttons we can at least advance to the next track...
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
One has to just look at the MBA, and even the MBP models...
Links to Steve's presentations and nothing else, eh? If computing has changed, then why do we still have laptops and desktops? Even better, why does Apple still sell them?
The links were about three of the four products that changed the tech landscape... the missing one was for the iPod.
The 1st Mac changed how we ALL would look at using a computer for a very long time. The 1st iPhone changed how we look at the smartphone, as did the 1st iPad.
As to your question about why does Apple still sell notebooks and desktops; or why anyone else might still be selling them. Seriously, till Intel and others can give us that power in a portable device - it won't happen. Yet the power that the iPad's offer are capturing the imagination of folks that realize they don't need major power for day-to-day tasks.
What I think we are seeing is an integration of devices that no other single company has yet been able to do. From our music players, to our TV, to our tablets, to our notebooks or desktops. And getting them all to play well with each other.
Goes back to my comments about Apple having a comfortable niche... 20-30% of us that like a seamless environment for our digital life...
Honestly I think Apple got the multitasking almost spot on... the way it manages it is perfect for a device with limited battery/processing power.
In the last 6 months I've "fixed" two phones for people (1x Android, 1 x Symbian) who've installed an app that's running constantly in the background and making the phone unusable to the point they thought it was broken. I used to find it with my own Nokia N95, the multitasking ability was excellent but you had to be careful what you left running or the battery could run down in a few hours.
I think Apple have made an excellent trade-off in that way, it used to bug the hell out of me that I couldn't use sat nav or internet radio apps in the background, but since iOS 4 I've really not found any situation where I need "true" multitasking and the current implementation has little effect on the battery.
+1
We might not like the "limits" gives us... but in the end it helps in the "experience"....
There are 'Droid lovers out there.. with many not liking the closed "eco-system" that Apple imposes for apps; and the selective "censorship" in apps or how a device like the ATV2 won't show Gay&Lesbian genre in the Netflix app on the ATV2.
In the end for the iPhone it seems that it has a 30% market share according to data I found. The iPad is harder to peg down since the numbers can be split between eReaders, tablets, netbooks, and even notebooks.
Once it all shakes out, Apple IMO would be happy with 20-30% across all their platforms. The revenue stream from iTunes will keep them very happy.
I disagree. The click wheel made it easier to use, as it was intuitive (scrolling clockwise down, anticlockwise up), and was also easily used inside a pocket [find the clickwheel and you're go]. The clickwheel has been hailed as a masterstroke for Apple; getting rid of the plethora of buttons on MP3 players and replacing it with a sleek interface. I find it the most annoying part of using my iPhone is that I have to look at the screen to use the controls.
+1
The click wheel in my first iPod won me over... though at least with compatible headsets with in-line buttons we can at least advance to the next track...
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
One has to just look at the MBA, and even the MBP models...
Links to Steve's presentations and nothing else, eh? If computing has changed, then why do we still have laptops and desktops? Even better, why does Apple still sell them?
The links were about three of the four products that changed the tech landscape... the missing one was for the iPod.
The 1st Mac changed how we ALL would look at using a computer for a very long time. The 1st iPhone changed how we look at the smartphone, as did the 1st iPad.
As to your question about why does Apple still sell notebooks and desktops; or why anyone else might still be selling them. Seriously, till Intel and others can give us that power in a portable device - it won't happen. Yet the power that the iPad's offer are capturing the imagination of folks that realize they don't need major power for day-to-day tasks.
What I think we are seeing is an integration of devices that no other single company has yet been able to do. From our music players, to our TV, to our tablets, to our notebooks or desktops. And getting them all to play well with each other.
Goes back to my comments about Apple having a comfortable niche... 20-30% of us that like a seamless environment for our digital life...
Honestly I think Apple got the multitasking almost spot on... the way it manages it is perfect for a device with limited battery/processing power.
In the last 6 months I've "fixed" two phones for people (1x Android, 1 x Symbian) who've installed an app that's running constantly in the background and making the phone unusable to the point they thought it was broken. I used to find it with my own Nokia N95, the multitasking ability was excellent but you had to be careful what you left running or the battery could run down in a few hours.
I think Apple have made an excellent trade-off in that way, it used to bug the hell out of me that I couldn't use sat nav or internet radio apps in the background, but since iOS 4 I've really not found any situation where I need "true" multitasking and the current implementation has little effect on the battery.
+1
We might not like the "limits" gives us... but in the end it helps in the "experience"....
DoFoT9
Jul 30, 07:00 PM
well i still have 3 main machines for folding, but none are back up to full force.
i don't have any of them running over 3.6 ghz (the fastest now is like 3.55 or so). so right now i'm just running -advmethods instead of -bigadv on 2 of them, and i'm actually using the other one, so no cpu folding right now.
lettering fonts and styles.
Tattoo Letter Fonts
Pay for Tattoo Font: A.C.M.E.
Old English tattoo letters are
New Tattoo Lettering Fonts.
tattoo lettering fonts.
tattoo fonts and lettering. alphabet letters fonts. alphabet letters fonts. wiz7dome. Aug 15, 12:16 PM. I just bought the 23 inch several
tattoo fonts and lettering.
Tattoo Fonts Letters Picture
Tattoo Fonts, Tattoo Lettering
free tattoo fonts. tattoo
i don't have any of them running over 3.6 ghz (the fastest now is like 3.55 or so). so right now i'm just running -advmethods instead of -bigadv on 2 of them, and i'm actually using the other one, so no cpu folding right now.
jelloshotsrule
Sep 8, 08:36 AM
Whatever, he is a no talent hack, and a dumbass.
"AIDS is a man-made disease in the first place, that was placed in Africa just like crack was placed in the black community to break up the Black Panther party."
He also criticised politicians for "riding home in their Benzs and Bentleys while poor Africans starve".
I wonder what he drives......
i won't defend the first comment, seems kinda overboard, though i bet it's way out of context.
however, the second comment... yeah, he probably drives a sweet car, but he also isn't in a political position in which he could be helping deal with the african poverty/aids crisis...
in both quotes, you have to look at the idea behind the words, not just take the words literally. but *he's* the dumbass...
"AIDS is a man-made disease in the first place, that was placed in Africa just like crack was placed in the black community to break up the Black Panther party."
He also criticised politicians for "riding home in their Benzs and Bentleys while poor Africans starve".
I wonder what he drives......
i won't defend the first comment, seems kinda overboard, though i bet it's way out of context.
however, the second comment... yeah, he probably drives a sweet car, but he also isn't in a political position in which he could be helping deal with the african poverty/aids crisis...
in both quotes, you have to look at the idea behind the words, not just take the words literally. but *he's* the dumbass...
alexprice
Jan 9, 04:45 PM
You must all believe me. I'm watching it right now!
Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 2, 04:31 AM
You are kidding right?Apart from the conclusion... what do you think is just "kidding"?
Mr. Chewbacca
Mar 24, 03:10 PM
Wish I had gotten a few shares of stock then!!
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.
dsnort
Oct 19, 05:31 PM
When one considers Dell's quality of their computers, why are they still #1?
I love my Macbook, but I gotta admit, my Dell Inspiron never just shutdown in the middle of a sen
I love my Macbook, but I gotta admit, my Dell Inspiron never just shutdown in the middle of a sen
Xyl
Jan 12, 07:46 PM
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
Just because it was labeled as a "smart phone" it doesn't necessarily imply "business users". According to the charts given by Apple, 1 billion handsets are sold annually. I'm assuming that this 1 billion includes all phones, and not only smart phones...someone correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, if I'm correct about this, getting 1% of the total phone market from just business users or the current smart phone market would be very difficult, and would be a very, very optimistic estimate. So one might assume that Apple is not only targeting the iPhone to current smart phone users, but to all users, INCLUDING the consumer market.
Personally, I find the iPhone to be quite appealing, and I'm not a business user (I would belong to the consumer market). And just for the record, I don't pray to Steve Jobs and I'm definitely not a "buy everything Apple" person...I own zero Apple products. Moreover, I'm not a crazed phone geek either, previous to seeing this phone, I strongly believe that paying over 100 dollars for a phone is absurd, yet I am still appealed to this 500-600 dollar phone. I'm sure there's others out there that have never spent over 100 on a phone and don't pray to Steve Jobs either, but still find this phone appealing.
Just because it was labeled as a "smart phone" it doesn't necessarily imply "business users". According to the charts given by Apple, 1 billion handsets are sold annually. I'm assuming that this 1 billion includes all phones, and not only smart phones...someone correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, if I'm correct about this, getting 1% of the total phone market from just business users or the current smart phone market would be very difficult, and would be a very, very optimistic estimate. So one might assume that Apple is not only targeting the iPhone to current smart phone users, but to all users, INCLUDING the consumer market.
Personally, I find the iPhone to be quite appealing, and I'm not a business user (I would belong to the consumer market). And just for the record, I don't pray to Steve Jobs and I'm definitely not a "buy everything Apple" person...I own zero Apple products. Moreover, I'm not a crazed phone geek either, previous to seeing this phone, I strongly believe that paying over 100 dollars for a phone is absurd, yet I am still appealed to this 500-600 dollar phone. I'm sure there's others out there that have never spent over 100 on a phone and don't pray to Steve Jobs either, but still find this phone appealing.
Baumi
Oct 2, 11:31 PM
When will this hacking nerd do something REALLY positive and productive to the world?
Well, if you've ever ripped a DVD you bought to watch it on the iPod, a non-DVD laptop, etc., he's the guy who made that possible. Legal grey area? Possibly. Useful, positive and productive? In my mind: Hell, yeah!
Baumi
Well, if you've ever ripped a DVD you bought to watch it on the iPod, a non-DVD laptop, etc., he's the guy who made that possible. Legal grey area? Possibly. Useful, positive and productive? In my mind: Hell, yeah!
Baumi
Evoken
Apr 6, 11:30 PM
Considering that we haven't had any substantial update since Leopard (as Snow Leopard was more an under the hood thing), which launched 4 years ago, the same year the original iPhone launched; the list of features that are being shown for Lion are downright underwhelming.
- The Mac App Store
This is not a part of the OS itself and I can use it right now. This is also hardly an innovation.
- Launchpad
This is just a slightly different take on the stacks concept, borrowing from the way it is handled in the iPad.
- Full-screen apps
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Mission Control
Just a tweak on the present expose concept. I find it looks a bit cumbersome/clunky.
- Auto save
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Versions
Hmmm....ok, useful.
- Resume
This one is good.
- Mail 5
Now with conversations, something Gmail has had for a long while already.
- AirDrop
Interesting but I think not all that different from using Bonjour to transfer files.
And...that's very much it...
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Apple as much as the next guy but this feature set is hardly impressive. I remember back when Apple released 10.4, I was actually excited about the new features and couldn't wait to update my computer. But now? I feel very much indifferent about Lion, don't see anything innovative or exciting at all, specially when one considers that the last update to include additional features as opposed to under the hood improvements (10.5) was released four years ago.
- The Mac App Store
This is not a part of the OS itself and I can use it right now. This is also hardly an innovation.
- Launchpad
This is just a slightly different take on the stacks concept, borrowing from the way it is handled in the iPad.
- Full-screen apps
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Mission Control
Just a tweak on the present expose concept. I find it looks a bit cumbersome/clunky.
- Auto save
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Versions
Hmmm....ok, useful.
- Resume
This one is good.
- Mail 5
Now with conversations, something Gmail has had for a long while already.
- AirDrop
Interesting but I think not all that different from using Bonjour to transfer files.
And...that's very much it...
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Apple as much as the next guy but this feature set is hardly impressive. I remember back when Apple released 10.4, I was actually excited about the new features and couldn't wait to update my computer. But now? I feel very much indifferent about Lion, don't see anything innovative or exciting at all, specially when one considers that the last update to include additional features as opposed to under the hood improvements (10.5) was released four years ago.
inket
Apr 13, 03:06 PM
CMD+K and entering the SMB sharing name fixed it I presume ?
D1G1T4L
Mar 17, 05:06 PM
Love this forum for a good laugh. Obviously the OP was wrong with what he did but love laughing at all the holier than thou responses. :D
gorkonapple
Sep 12, 08:20 AM
Note that it doesn't say "The iTunes Music Store is being updated." That's a pretty clear sign to me that not only are they going to add movies, it's also now just going to be the iTunes Store.
It really looks like movies may be hitting the iTunes Store. I also am wondering....could they also be integrating the Apple Store into iTunes?? It would be cool to buy a new iPod right from within iTunes and maybe....possibly have it shipped with all of your iTunes purchases on the device.....that would of course require a firmware/iTunes update? Anyway I am sure we will probably all be disappointed.
It really looks like movies may be hitting the iTunes Store. I also am wondering....could they also be integrating the Apple Store into iTunes?? It would be cool to buy a new iPod right from within iTunes and maybe....possibly have it shipped with all of your iTunes purchases on the device.....that would of course require a firmware/iTunes update? Anyway I am sure we will probably all be disappointed.
0815
May 3, 02:20 PM
So much for the freedom of being open :rolleyes:
- carriers adding crapware by default
- carriers blocking certain apps
- carriers preventing you from updating to the latest OS (or if you are lucky only delay it for a long time)
- android was the only mobile platform where the remote wipe had to be used once for 'bad' apps
.... yep, way to go Android - open is good (for carriers, not the user) :D
- carriers adding crapware by default
- carriers blocking certain apps
- carriers preventing you from updating to the latest OS (or if you are lucky only delay it for a long time)
- android was the only mobile platform where the remote wipe had to be used once for 'bad' apps
.... yep, way to go Android - open is good (for carriers, not the user) :D
dejo
Apr 25, 05:16 PM
What makes you think that cancelIt: is being passed an NSTimer object?
NebulaClash
May 3, 10:36 PM
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
Agreed, and it is the big long-term mistake Android marketers are making. When you appeal to young males in your ads, while repelling everyone else, you limit your product's long-term appeal. Gadget blogs don't see the problem because they are mostly young males.
Apple ads appeal to everyone the way traditional Coke or McDonalds ads did and often still do.
Agreed, and it is the big long-term mistake Android marketers are making. When you appeal to young males in your ads, while repelling everyone else, you limit your product's long-term appeal. Gadget blogs don't see the problem because they are mostly young males.
Apple ads appeal to everyone the way traditional Coke or McDonalds ads did and often still do.
robogobo
May 3, 05:45 AM
That's the result of modifying the firmware of your phone. If you don't like it, don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to.
I really don't see the point. If you wanted to install your own "homebrew" apps without using the App Store, you can already do so by using "ad-hoc deployment" or joining the Enterprise Developer Program. Either option makes rolling out your own apps simple.
How's the view from under that rock?
Is that really worth breaking compatibility with updates? I don't think so.
If someone does think so, then they can do it... but then it is a bit rich to complain in forums about the need to re-jailbreak every time Apple releases an update.
Must be nice.
I really don't see the point. If you wanted to install your own "homebrew" apps without using the App Store, you can already do so by using "ad-hoc deployment" or joining the Enterprise Developer Program. Either option makes rolling out your own apps simple.
How's the view from under that rock?
Is that really worth breaking compatibility with updates? I don't think so.
If someone does think so, then they can do it... but then it is a bit rich to complain in forums about the need to re-jailbreak every time Apple releases an update.
Must be nice.
