hob
Jan 5, 03:21 PM
Doesn't anyone remember that this used to be the case? Right in the beginning, there was a live video feed to all the Apple stores... I went to two of them, both at the Mall of America store (and both times sat next to some very quirky Mac users... y'know... the regular type). Then one year, I went and it wasn't on. I was pissed. Then I learned Apple wasn't doing that because it was too expensive or something.
Seeing the floor traffic of those places, I don't see how it couldn't be lucrative to get passers-by excited about fresh products...
Whatever, I guess.
-Clive
I think it was WWDC '05, just after the Apple Store in Regent Street, London had just opened. I went in about 4 hours before the keynote was due to start, I actually happened to be passing through. I also happened to see the store manager standing on the bottom floor. I enquired if he'd be showing the keynote in the theatre, he said something like
"I'd love to, but none of my staff would get any work done"...! Which is totally opposite to the experience I had at every other apple store front and back...
Ideally, they should get all the security guards to be extra vigilant, as they don't care about the keynote, give all the staffers the 2 hours off except a few for the tills (they could even rotate them on 20-minute shifts) then put Steve up on all the screens, and in the theatre, and have him blaring out throughout the store!
Then bust out all the "do not open until 7pm" boxes! I'd be there with about £400 in my pocket!!
edit: after that blurb, I forgot what I was gonna write! Cheers Arn, good job! I'm worried the feed will get totally MacRumoured though!!
Seeing the floor traffic of those places, I don't see how it couldn't be lucrative to get passers-by excited about fresh products...
Whatever, I guess.
-Clive
I think it was WWDC '05, just after the Apple Store in Regent Street, London had just opened. I went in about 4 hours before the keynote was due to start, I actually happened to be passing through. I also happened to see the store manager standing on the bottom floor. I enquired if he'd be showing the keynote in the theatre, he said something like
"I'd love to, but none of my staff would get any work done"...! Which is totally opposite to the experience I had at every other apple store front and back...
Ideally, they should get all the security guards to be extra vigilant, as they don't care about the keynote, give all the staffers the 2 hours off except a few for the tills (they could even rotate them on 20-minute shifts) then put Steve up on all the screens, and in the theatre, and have him blaring out throughout the store!
Then bust out all the "do not open until 7pm" boxes! I'd be there with about £400 in my pocket!!
edit: after that blurb, I forgot what I was gonna write! Cheers Arn, good job! I'm worried the feed will get totally MacRumoured though!!
jetjaguar
Apr 8, 07:12 PM
Portenzo case finally came in as did my beats that I got for $80. Also got an element/atomic copy cat case from DX and a bumper from there as well. Lastly, ordered a new stylus for the laptop. It sucks, but I'm getting a free one because the one they sent was not working. It's a good pen/laser pointer/LED torch though, but that's not why I bought it. Oh I also get some some padded twisty ties, batteries, and air canisters for office upkeep. Funny thing is I'm almost as excited about the padded cable ties as I am with the other purchases :D
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3117/p4080881.jpg
what theme is that for your lockscreen .. looks great
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3117/p4080881.jpg
what theme is that for your lockscreen .. looks great
iMacThere4Iam
Apr 8, 05:05 PM
Thanks for the perspective, BBEmployee. The truth is always in the details.
Mac_Freak
Sep 7, 10:20 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.
tuartboy
Jan 9, 04:44 PM
I, for one, am going to forget this keynote nonsense for a bit and go play a few rounds of counter strike. After a game or 2 and a nice dinner, I will come back and check, and by then it had better be up. OR I WILL UNLEASH THE F'N FURY!
j-traxx
Apr 15, 06:22 PM
I love Apple but these are bad news.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
and FAIL.
iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!
they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
and FAIL.
iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!
they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.
CorvusCamenarum
Apr 26, 04:09 AM
It's depressing how corporate policies created out of fear of liability, have made it easier to be a gutless wonder than a participant in a civil society.
Of course the employees should have jumped in and stopped the fight, but I agree that McDonalds cannot be held liable for their employee's failure to be decent human beings.
Maybe not McDonalds as a corporation, but that individual franchise, sure.
There was a case here some years ago where a man was dragged from his car while in the drive-through at a local Krystal's (White Castle for you northerners) and had the snot beat out of him by two drunken idiots. That franchise was named in the lawsuit, and he was awarded a couple million dollars.
Of course the employees should have jumped in and stopped the fight, but I agree that McDonalds cannot be held liable for their employee's failure to be decent human beings.
Maybe not McDonalds as a corporation, but that individual franchise, sure.
There was a case here some years ago where a man was dragged from his car while in the drive-through at a local Krystal's (White Castle for you northerners) and had the snot beat out of him by two drunken idiots. That franchise was named in the lawsuit, and he was awarded a couple million dollars.
NAG
Jan 12, 07:43 PM
The issue here is that bloggers and online journalists are still a fairly new medium and haven't been fully accepted yet. This would happen with any sort of group that didn't have a history.
I would bet that no print media journalist would ever pull crap like this, either. He/she would have been fired on the spot and the publication itself would have issued a real apology, not post a video online and issue a half-hearted apology to one group.
Whoa. You honestly think that there isn't anyone in the print media that pulled stuff like that? You haven't read a lot of the more satirical magazines.
And by saying "haven't been fully accepted yet" you really mean "the big print media guys are still in their transition." They all know print is basically dead, they've been trying to transition for years. Some morons with a blog turning off tvs at a tech conference are not going to stop this transition. If anything it will lead to conferences learning how to properly vet online media like they do with print media.
I would bet that no print media journalist would ever pull crap like this, either. He/she would have been fired on the spot and the publication itself would have issued a real apology, not post a video online and issue a half-hearted apology to one group.
Whoa. You honestly think that there isn't anyone in the print media that pulled stuff like that? You haven't read a lot of the more satirical magazines.
And by saying "haven't been fully accepted yet" you really mean "the big print media guys are still in their transition." They all know print is basically dead, they've been trying to transition for years. Some morons with a blog turning off tvs at a tech conference are not going to stop this transition. If anything it will lead to conferences learning how to properly vet online media like they do with print media.
�algiris
Mar 25, 03:00 AM
I don't think I've ever seen such a consistent troll on any forum.
"Consistent" is an understatement.
"Consistent" is an understatement.
Rodimus Prime
May 4, 11:54 AM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Well seeing how in 6 pages I have yet to see the logical answer to this I will give it.
It is because it shows the US carries are cracking down on tethering and going after them.
Now there is still an easy way to get said apps threw market with out sideload.
Put your phone in airplane mode. Then turn on wifi and boom full market access while in airplane mode.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Well seeing how in 6 pages I have yet to see the logical answer to this I will give it.
It is because it shows the US carries are cracking down on tethering and going after them.
Now there is still an easy way to get said apps threw market with out sideload.
Put your phone in airplane mode. Then turn on wifi and boom full market access while in airplane mode.
ivladster
Apr 29, 02:38 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.
And I'll take this any day over Windows.
And I'll take this any day over Windows.
RawBert
Apr 8, 02:05 PM
Just purchase the iPad 2 at store.apple.com.
& **** Best Buy!
& **** Best Buy!
SPUY767
Oct 3, 08:32 AM
Right, there are only billions of people who can watch DVD's on computers of their choice now because of his efforts who couldn't before, spawning all kinds of video editing, DVR, and high-quality conversion systems that couldn't have existed without his work.
He defeated a system designed to take away fair use rights from the citizenry and hasn't done anything productive? OK, if you don't care about your rights maybe you have a point.
Billions huh? There are scarcely a billion personal computers out there, forget the linux numbers, they are in the low millions. And you honestly think that there are tons of people using Open Source just because we do? No, the masses are content to use Windows Media in all its crappiness to play all their DVDs. We, my friend, are few and far between.
He defeated a system designed to take away fair use rights from the citizenry and hasn't done anything productive? OK, if you don't care about your rights maybe you have a point.
Billions huh? There are scarcely a billion personal computers out there, forget the linux numbers, they are in the low millions. And you honestly think that there are tons of people using Open Source just because we do? No, the masses are content to use Windows Media in all its crappiness to play all their DVDs. We, my friend, are few and far between.
chrmjenkins
Apr 25, 02:17 PM
Screen is clearly faked one way or another.
The Internet is an easy mark.
Well then you'll be able to provide specific points as to why it's faked then, no?
The Internet is an easy mark.
Well then you'll be able to provide specific points as to why it's faked then, no?
SavMan
Oct 11, 08:11 PM
For the last time, folks...
THE MATERIALS ON THE 5G iPOD ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE ON THE 4G!
The main differences are the addition of black underlay on one model, and the change to squared edges from rounded. The top layer of acrylic on an iPod is clear, and like any clear solid, will shunt light along it. Ever look at fiber-optic cable? Notice this: if you shine a light at the terminal of the cable (the leading edge of the fibers) they will duct light to the other end. You won't see the light from the sides, nor will shining a light at the side of the cable cause light to be refracted through the cable ends.
What happens on the new iPods that didn't happen on the old ones is that a large amount of light is coming through the flat edges of the acrylic. When your iPod is shiny and new (or if you're smart enough to put a modicum of protection on your $250�$400 appliance) light just shunts from one side of the iPod to the other. When you start making scratches in the acrylic however, the light escapes through the new "edge" (the gouge), effectively illuminating the otherwise innocuous scratch. This is also why the black iPods seem more affected than the white: the contrast is obviously higher against a black background.
Another huge issue: most iPod users prior to this year owned the nearly scratch-proof iPod mini. The contrast between the anodized aluminum's resilience and the acrylic's proclivity to mar caused a lot more people to bitch. A lot of nanos were sold to folks who assumed they could just toss it in their pocket next to their coins and keys.
To recap: there were no material changes in the acrylic used on the new iPods. Period. The only difference is the manner in which the acrylic is shaped. The round sides of the old iPods didn't allow light to enter the skin to any significant degree. Check out a 4G sometime, God knows I see enough on a daily basis myself. They'll be every bit as scratched (usually more), but it won't effect the appearance nearly as much. Thank you.
(I wish I had a "The More You Know" image right here.)
THE MATERIALS ON THE 5G iPOD ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE ON THE 4G!
The main differences are the addition of black underlay on one model, and the change to squared edges from rounded. The top layer of acrylic on an iPod is clear, and like any clear solid, will shunt light along it. Ever look at fiber-optic cable? Notice this: if you shine a light at the terminal of the cable (the leading edge of the fibers) they will duct light to the other end. You won't see the light from the sides, nor will shining a light at the side of the cable cause light to be refracted through the cable ends.
What happens on the new iPods that didn't happen on the old ones is that a large amount of light is coming through the flat edges of the acrylic. When your iPod is shiny and new (or if you're smart enough to put a modicum of protection on your $250�$400 appliance) light just shunts from one side of the iPod to the other. When you start making scratches in the acrylic however, the light escapes through the new "edge" (the gouge), effectively illuminating the otherwise innocuous scratch. This is also why the black iPods seem more affected than the white: the contrast is obviously higher against a black background.
Another huge issue: most iPod users prior to this year owned the nearly scratch-proof iPod mini. The contrast between the anodized aluminum's resilience and the acrylic's proclivity to mar caused a lot more people to bitch. A lot of nanos were sold to folks who assumed they could just toss it in their pocket next to their coins and keys.
To recap: there were no material changes in the acrylic used on the new iPods. Period. The only difference is the manner in which the acrylic is shaped. The round sides of the old iPods didn't allow light to enter the skin to any significant degree. Check out a 4G sometime, God knows I see enough on a daily basis myself. They'll be every bit as scratched (usually more), but it won't effect the appearance nearly as much. Thank you.
(I wish I had a "The More You Know" image right here.)
Rodimus Prime
May 4, 11:54 AM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Well seeing how in 6 pages I have yet to see the logical answer to this I will give it.
It is because it shows the US carries are cracking down on tethering and going after them.
Now there is still an easy way to get said apps threw market with out sideload.
Put your phone in airplane mode. Then turn on wifi and boom full market access while in airplane mode.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Well seeing how in 6 pages I have yet to see the logical answer to this I will give it.
It is because it shows the US carries are cracking down on tethering and going after them.
Now there is still an easy way to get said apps threw market with out sideload.
Put your phone in airplane mode. Then turn on wifi and boom full market access while in airplane mode.
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.
Dagless
Mar 6, 11:43 AM
LOL - you make it sound like everyone else just copies Apple: Other companies are inventive, for example, the company behind Kinetic, or Nintendo ( first 3d game system not requiring glasses ), or Amazon for making the first popular ebook reader device, or sony
Apple are highly visible and of course, they do make innovative products but I wouldn't go as far to say "the only company".
Exactly. Apple are just highly visible. Looking around my studio now and scanning through the tools I use at work I see lots of advanced tech that Apple doesn't use;
Microsoft Kinect, Playstation Move, Bluray, 3D display, Wacom, decent headphones, HD video camera, DSLR.
Then there's Haptic/tactile feedback for touchscreens and OLED that they could be taking advantage of...
Apple are highly visible and of course, they do make innovative products but I wouldn't go as far to say "the only company".
Exactly. Apple are just highly visible. Looking around my studio now and scanning through the tools I use at work I see lots of advanced tech that Apple doesn't use;
Microsoft Kinect, Playstation Move, Bluray, 3D display, Wacom, decent headphones, HD video camera, DSLR.
Then there's Haptic/tactile feedback for touchscreens and OLED that they could be taking advantage of...
Anuba
Jan 12, 07:44 PM
Welcome to America. We're just now getting 3G (in regards to GSM networks, anyhow).
So I'm told, but A) 3G phones are backwards compatible with old GSM networks. Mine switches between 3G/regular GSM constantly when I'm at home, as I live very close to a base station but far from the nearest 3G mast. Hence they should just stick a 3G 'sleeper cell' in there for (near) future use... and B) I respect that Apple is an American company, but they peddle their stuff all across the globe. Every little itty bitty iPod has 21 languages built in. When Apple Store closes down for maintenance it happens simultaneously all across the globe, and when it pops back online again the new products are available in all countries. Never in Apple's history have I seen them do something as US-centric as this - heck, we're not getting it until 2008! Strange, pretty damn alienating, and it had better not become a habit.
So I'm told, but A) 3G phones are backwards compatible with old GSM networks. Mine switches between 3G/regular GSM constantly when I'm at home, as I live very close to a base station but far from the nearest 3G mast. Hence they should just stick a 3G 'sleeper cell' in there for (near) future use... and B) I respect that Apple is an American company, but they peddle their stuff all across the globe. Every little itty bitty iPod has 21 languages built in. When Apple Store closes down for maintenance it happens simultaneously all across the globe, and when it pops back online again the new products are available in all countries. Never in Apple's history have I seen them do something as US-centric as this - heck, we're not getting it until 2008! Strange, pretty damn alienating, and it had better not become a habit.
pudrums
Apr 8, 09:08 AM
Ultraviolet
http://www.djfl.de/entertainment/djfl/1120/bilder/112432p_usa.jpg
http://www.djfl.de/entertainment/djfl/1120/bilder/112432p_usa.jpg
frjonah
Apr 29, 10:12 PM
This may be off-topic, but does anyone know if the recently purchased Mac products are "grandfathered in" for a Lion release? In other words, I just bought a new MacBook Pro yesterday... am I going to need to pay to upgrade to Lion?
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
SPEEDwithJJ
Mar 17, 12:51 AM
Nice. Too bad some kid is going to have $300 docked from his pay...
Unfortunately, that's also true. :(
Unfortunately, that's also true. :(
robo74
Dec 13, 08:45 PM
Consequently, we are publishing this rumor on Page 2 for interest and discussion.
Discussion? I cant remember when a article about a VZW iPhone ever lead to a discussion. Just a bunch of know it all's with every excuse in the book for it not to happen.
Discussion? I cant remember when a article about a VZW iPhone ever lead to a discussion. Just a bunch of know it all's with every excuse in the book for it not to happen.
HiRez
Aug 7, 04:24 PM
The 20" is still way over-priced.I agree, I just picked up a pretty nice 19" LG for $299. Would I rather have a 20" Cinema Display? Yes, but for over 2X the price it's not even a consideration. Still way overpriced. Even the Sonys are considerably less expensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment