GGJstudios
Apr 21, 11:45 AM
It is against forum rules to simply reply "+1": what on earth is the difference between that and clicking a button to say "+1"?
The difference is, clicking the vote button doesn't add a useless post to the thread and doesn't increase the voter's post count (since many have used +1 posts in the past to artificially boost their post counts for avatars, etc.)
The difference is, clicking the vote button doesn't add a useless post to the thread and doesn't increase the voter's post count (since many have used +1 posts in the past to artificially boost their post counts for avatars, etc.)
JAT
May 2, 11:20 PM
Wow, I finally got a reply! Didn't expect that, I appreciate it. ;)
Sure. That was one of few worthwhile posts in this thread. I just hope this update actually helps. I've been trying to analyze it myself. It seems like 4.2.7 is worse than 4.2.6 for battery life, but not positive.
Sure. That was one of few worthwhile posts in this thread. I just hope this update actually helps. I've been trying to analyze it myself. It seems like 4.2.7 is worse than 4.2.6 for battery life, but not positive.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 8, 12:58 PM
I wonder what the special promotion is.
Perhaps! New Hardware is coming out (iMacs???) and the promo will be a buy a Mac get an iPad for $X.
Perhaps! New Hardware is coming out (iMacs???) and the promo will be a buy a Mac get an iPad for $X.
stagelighteyes
Apr 8, 01:52 PM
The key word in that is IF most best buys don't have any ipads in stock to begin with and neither do apple store. There is a very short supply of them right now. so IF a store has some based on SOP they can hold them. It'll only be till Sunday so calm yourselves down. As for the PS3 can only be sold with a PSP you should have told him to shove it and spoke with a manager. That can get a kid fired
more...
MykullMyerz
Mar 17, 08:36 AM
OMG you people are completely overreacting. Do you know how often cashiers make mistakes such as this? If every store fired every cashier that came up short on their register at least once in their retail career, their would probably no cashiers. It's a common mistake that happens more often than you think and most stores just take it as a lost and go about business as usual. So, unless the cashier is completely incompetent and this incident is a repeat occurrence, I doubt he'll get fired.
Lynxpro
Oct 20, 01:40 PM
Seriously, the more I think about it, the more upset I am that they aren't offering one. I mean, what the heck are they goint to do with $10 billion? Even the most aggressive expansion and R&D strategy doesn't justify holding onto that. And it would be a great way to offset any damage from the options fiasco. And it would boost the shares 5% (at least) on announcement. They USED to pay a dividend (1987-1995). It's time to bring it back!
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
more...
Links
Aug 14, 09:37 PM
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
longofest
Oct 28, 04:50 PM
Folks, I think you are misinterpreting what the OSx86 project is doing (at least in this case)...
The OSx86 project is taking the Darwin and XNU source that Apple releases and making them so they can run on any x86 hardware. Basically, they are bringing back the functionality that Darwin and XNU had BEFORE Apple ported OSX to Intel, as the x86 versions of Darwin used to run on any x86 hardware until Apple started including a lot of EFI-specific commands (as well as some other things). If you download and compile the OSx86 source, you won't be able to get a full-fledged OSX user experience, because they have not circumvented Apple's TPM protections for the GUI. In order to get Aqua, you need to have the Aqua resource files (which you'd have to get from a OSX install CD), and you'd have to get the TPM keys, which would be illegal.
Also remember, Darwin and XNU does NOT EQUAL the full OSX user experience. Darwin/XNU is just a command-line operating system, as that is the only part that is open-source.
The OSx86 project is taking the Darwin and XNU source that Apple releases and making them so they can run on any x86 hardware. Basically, they are bringing back the functionality that Darwin and XNU had BEFORE Apple ported OSX to Intel, as the x86 versions of Darwin used to run on any x86 hardware until Apple started including a lot of EFI-specific commands (as well as some other things). If you download and compile the OSx86 source, you won't be able to get a full-fledged OSX user experience, because they have not circumvented Apple's TPM protections for the GUI. In order to get Aqua, you need to have the Aqua resource files (which you'd have to get from a OSX install CD), and you'd have to get the TPM keys, which would be illegal.
Also remember, Darwin and XNU does NOT EQUAL the full OSX user experience. Darwin/XNU is just a command-line operating system, as that is the only part that is open-source.
more...
Suture
Mar 26, 03:59 PM
Man, that sucks. There's got to be something the police can do.
I don't know if it will help you any, but you can sign your XBox gamertag up for the 360 blog (something like 360blogvoice.com I think) -- and it keeps a log of what you played on the 360 on a daily basis. Maybe see what the person is playing. I have no idea how it will help though.
Hope you get it back.
I don't know if it will help you any, but you can sign your XBox gamertag up for the 360 blog (something like 360blogvoice.com I think) -- and it keeps a log of what you played on the 360 on a daily basis. Maybe see what the person is playing. I have no idea how it will help though.
Hope you get it back.
Nermal
Oct 3, 10:53 PM
If they do that it probably wouldn't work with iTMS purchased tracks.
Indeed, there would need to be a "helper" that checks to see where the track came from, and redirects it to DoubleTwist if necessary.
I'm interested in seeing where this all goes, it'll hopefully silence the complaints of the lack of an NZ iTMS.
Indeed, there would need to be a "helper" that checks to see where the track came from, and redirects it to DoubleTwist if necessary.
I'm interested in seeing where this all goes, it'll hopefully silence the complaints of the lack of an NZ iTMS.
more...
tonyvz
Nov 24, 07:54 AM
I got mine last Back Friday and it was discounted.. so maybe.
AirPort Express Base Station
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00
AirPort Express Base Station
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00
AlBDamned
Nov 15, 07:23 PM
my personal gripes/opinions:
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
Agree with all of this about the multiplayer. I sure as hell hope there's a significant patch in the works for all platforms, but even that will not bring this game up to where it should be given its history.
It's just a shame that a) MW3 is a long way away; and b) given all the stuff that's gone down at Infinity Ward, there's no guarantee that will be any good either (although it should look like a 2010 game, not something on the PS2). Treyarch jumped the shark completely with Black Ops multiplayer.
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
Agree with all of this about the multiplayer. I sure as hell hope there's a significant patch in the works for all platforms, but even that will not bring this game up to where it should be given its history.
It's just a shame that a) MW3 is a long way away; and b) given all the stuff that's gone down at Infinity Ward, there's no guarantee that will be any good either (although it should look like a 2010 game, not something on the PS2). Treyarch jumped the shark completely with Black Ops multiplayer.
more...
gravytrain84
Mar 17, 01:19 PM
Yeah that employee probably lost his job dude.
Hopefully. He's obviously a moron
Hopefully. He's obviously a moron
mcrain
Mar 4, 08:25 AM
Go Ohio! Crush the unions! Return to fiscal sanity. No more hiding behind a union... time to return to personal responsibility. Ohio today, Wisconsin tomorrow, who's next? Sweep the states clean, Tea Party!
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)
Ahh, but if it is OK for the Republican Party to "sweep the states clean" you better keep your mouth shut when their actions here result in Democratic majorities and we sweep collective bargaining into a national right and make collective bargaining a far easier thing to obtain and make it a criminal act for any business or business owner to interfer with employees rights to organize unions. You're using your "friendly lawmakers" to launch a sneak attack on unions. Don't be surprised when this bites you in the butt.
Lee, my wife is a teacher. Most importantly, without thuggish unions, good teachers like my wife would make far more money than they do today, while the bad ones would make less or be fired. Actually, if she were any good, wouldn't she be teaching in a private school and making more money? Since she isn't, the evidence clearly shows she must be unqualified, and only have a job where she is rotting the minds of kids because of the union. Right? She's the problem, not all the good teachers she's keeping down.
(edit) In case anyone thinks I have said anything mean about FP's wife, keep in mind the only thing I know about her is that she's a teacher in a union.
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)
Ahh, but if it is OK for the Republican Party to "sweep the states clean" you better keep your mouth shut when their actions here result in Democratic majorities and we sweep collective bargaining into a national right and make collective bargaining a far easier thing to obtain and make it a criminal act for any business or business owner to interfer with employees rights to organize unions. You're using your "friendly lawmakers" to launch a sneak attack on unions. Don't be surprised when this bites you in the butt.
Lee, my wife is a teacher. Most importantly, without thuggish unions, good teachers like my wife would make far more money than they do today, while the bad ones would make less or be fired. Actually, if she were any good, wouldn't she be teaching in a private school and making more money? Since she isn't, the evidence clearly shows she must be unqualified, and only have a job where she is rotting the minds of kids because of the union. Right? She's the problem, not all the good teachers she's keeping down.
(edit) In case anyone thinks I have said anything mean about FP's wife, keep in mind the only thing I know about her is that she's a teacher in a union.
more...
apfhex
Jan 9, 03:36 PM
9.41 on the ****.
Nice theory there, but out here in California, Pacific Standard Time, that wouldn't make a bit of sense as the time for the posting of the keynote.
In fact 9:41am PST is nearly the exactly time during the keynote that Steve announced the ****.
Nice theory there, but out here in California, Pacific Standard Time, that wouldn't make a bit of sense as the time for the posting of the keynote.
In fact 9:41am PST is nearly the exactly time during the keynote that Steve announced the ****.
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.
more...
sejanus
Aug 15, 03:53 AM
I just bought a 30" from apple online and i doubt it's "really new" but i have no way of telling.
The box looked a little dusty but i didn't really care, it looks great.
I was looking at buying a 30" anyway - it was march when they updated those right? I don't think they got updated at wwdc did they?
The box looked a little dusty but i didn't really care, it looks great.
I was looking at buying a 30" anyway - it was march when they updated those right? I don't think they got updated at wwdc did they?
iVeBeenDrinkin'
Apr 7, 01:15 AM
About damn time too...
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Nice kit
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Nice kit
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 09:37 AM
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Tyler76
Oct 2, 03:21 AM
this is one of the worst titles for a story I have read. It also sounds like whoever wrote the story has no knowledge of anything that's been happening in architecture for about a century.
Clean, modern design? Must be influenced by the iPhone! :rolleyes:
They are referring to iPhone, the main topic.
Clean, modern design? Must be influenced by the iPhone! :rolleyes:
They are referring to iPhone, the main topic.
bense27
Aug 3, 06:40 PM
just the fact that its name is the "Argo" tells you that its not posing a threat to iPods.
twoodcc
May 10, 06:06 AM
Now my Mac Pro is only getting normal wu's not bigadv units. It was interesting watching the MP and i7980x running side by side, I'll try to get a screenshot later when I get home, they were very close in time per frame at about 3 minutes... hope they get some more bigadv units out for us to run :rolleyes:
oh wow. i wonder if they are getting ready to do away with bigadv units?
well my home built rig crashed again just before i left last night. it just froze in windows. i got it back up before i left, but who knows if it's still going. by looking at my output, i don't think it is, but i'm not totally sure.
oh wow. i wonder if they are getting ready to do away with bigadv units?
well my home built rig crashed again just before i left last night. it just froze in windows. i got it back up before i left, but who knows if it's still going. by looking at my output, i don't think it is, but i'm not totally sure.
Surely
Apr 5, 09:10 PM
Okay, I've changed my mind....I downloaded this app, and now it's my most favorite app ever.:D
;)
;)
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:29 PM
i was whatching it and it ****ed up in the middle
No comments:
Post a Comment