124151155
Apr 16, 11:17 PM
I'm aware that these are fake, but I think this is what the next iPhones are going to look like - following the design of the iPad...
Hopefully there will be a 128GB model, I'd definitely be getting one of them =D
Hopefully there will be a 128GB model, I'd definitely be getting one of them =D
roadbloc
Apr 5, 04:35 PM
This is stupid.
JayMysterio
Dec 6, 07:59 PM
the kill streak rewards are so low because its practically impossible to get more then 11 kills in one game with the ****** spawns. (unless you get lucky) 25 was feasible in Modern Warfare because it was a much better game and strategic players who knew how to play could get 25 kills cause they were fighting dip *****. in Black Ops everyone (dip ***** and good players alike) seems to be forced into the same run and gun strategy.
This goes back to Treyarch's seeming desire to reduce the trenched in camping snipers. The real reason that 25 was feasible was because of stacking killstreaks. If you've seen the vids of people getting nukes in record time, it was all based on opening grenade spam salvo, hoping that gets enough for a killstreak, working to a copter, which lead to a nuke. Not necessarily anything based on skill.
Treyarch has wisely spaced the spawns far enough so opening grenade spams don't work ( unless it's Nuketown and the opposing team runs as a pack into a rolling holy frag grenade ), so if one does lucky with the opening it only leads to an RC XD or perhaps a SAM turret ( hardline pro changing of it is becoming tired, but they claim a fix is coming ), but no cheap additions to a more lethal killstreak.
The spawning issue which is infuriating at times, but does have a point. It completely destroys camping. Treyarch seemed to make a decision to nerf the whole snipe/camp thing, making sniping more difficult, and camping a risky & questionable proposition. Running & gunning is the way Black Ops seems to go, if you want to camp, stack killstreaks, modern warfare is the way to go. The amount of times I have seen someone going XX kills & 0 deaths I can count on one hand, while in MW2 I had done it quite a few times.
I think Black Ops has become a nice alternative, and not just a continuation of modern warfare. It gives players choices.
This goes back to Treyarch's seeming desire to reduce the trenched in camping snipers. The real reason that 25 was feasible was because of stacking killstreaks. If you've seen the vids of people getting nukes in record time, it was all based on opening grenade spam salvo, hoping that gets enough for a killstreak, working to a copter, which lead to a nuke. Not necessarily anything based on skill.
Treyarch has wisely spaced the spawns far enough so opening grenade spams don't work ( unless it's Nuketown and the opposing team runs as a pack into a rolling holy frag grenade ), so if one does lucky with the opening it only leads to an RC XD or perhaps a SAM turret ( hardline pro changing of it is becoming tired, but they claim a fix is coming ), but no cheap additions to a more lethal killstreak.
The spawning issue which is infuriating at times, but does have a point. It completely destroys camping. Treyarch seemed to make a decision to nerf the whole snipe/camp thing, making sniping more difficult, and camping a risky & questionable proposition. Running & gunning is the way Black Ops seems to go, if you want to camp, stack killstreaks, modern warfare is the way to go. The amount of times I have seen someone going XX kills & 0 deaths I can count on one hand, while in MW2 I had done it quite a few times.
I think Black Ops has become a nice alternative, and not just a continuation of modern warfare. It gives players choices.
BoyBach
Jul 26, 04:48 PM
A funny article about Zune's new software etc, and what it means for PlayForSure:
Switched On: The next PlaysForSure ad (http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/26/switched-on-the-next-playsforsure-ad/)
Microsoft. Your products. Our prerogative.
Switched On: The next PlaysForSure ad (http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/26/switched-on-the-next-playsforsure-ad/)
Microsoft. Your products. Our prerogative.
iApache
Apr 11, 10:43 PM
Jealousy kicked in all of a sudden. I'm still saving up for mine. For now trying to convince myself that my T1i is still good.
And here's my last online purchase.. iPhone 4 Case..
Really like it but I know its not going to last long.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5181/5610997374_08e3cbdbbb_z.jpg
That case is awesome, where did you purchase it?
And here's my last online purchase.. iPhone 4 Case..
Really like it but I know its not going to last long.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5181/5610997374_08e3cbdbbb_z.jpg
That case is awesome, where did you purchase it?
paduck
Aug 3, 06:54 PM
It has a lot of standard features, and seems to be more on the premium targeted market vs. regular sedans.
Did the Preius start out on the expensive side as well?
Well, the Prius carries about a $5000 price premium compared with a comprable Toyota or Honda. But it sells for $24k without as big a tax credit (if any). So I'd have to say that the Prius Premium isn't close to that of the Volt. Plus, you can fit three car seats in a Prius. The Volt is a four-seater.
Did the Preius start out on the expensive side as well?
Well, the Prius carries about a $5000 price premium compared with a comprable Toyota or Honda. But it sells for $24k without as big a tax credit (if any). So I'd have to say that the Prius Premium isn't close to that of the Volt. Plus, you can fit three car seats in a Prius. The Volt is a four-seater.
Vegasman
Mar 28, 04:07 PM
So..What great App you all feel is going to be excluded by this change? I did not see anything from last years winners that could not be in the app store if the developer wanted.
If you have a great app, you may not need the App Store to help market it. So why give Steve 30% when you don't need to.
If you have a great app, you may not need the App Store to help market it. So why give Steve 30% when you don't need to.
holmesf
Mar 24, 06:20 PM
I have been using Mac OS X since the first public beta. I still have screenshots around from the public beta, 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2.
I feel like this one best exemplifies the time during which Mac OS X originated: the Matrix was incredibly popular, as was Quake III. But most popular of all were PC and Mac users trolling each other about which operating system was best, the so called MHz myth, etc. I was 14 years old when I took this screenshot, and oh boy was I an Apple evangelist reaching absurd proportions.
Really I think most of us were still very worried that Apple would go under, and despite being "really cool", OS X had serious problems that wouldn't necessarily make you optimistic. It was slow. Window resizing was really painful, and 3D games tended to run much slower in OS X than in OS9. There was a dearth of software and even much of Apple's own software was not yet compatible.
On the other hand it was really stable, right from the start. Running OS 9, the expectation was that it wasn't "if" your computer froze, but rather "when" it froze. Without protected memory (applications could corrupt eachother) and without pre-emptive multitasking (applications could go into infinite loops refusing to give back control to the OS) the operating system was just really unstable, and frankly it was getting archaic compared to Windows. OS X and its unix underpinnings with a modern pre-emptive multitasking scheduler and protected memory not only brought stability, but also finally allowed Apple's dual processor systems to actually take advantage of the 2nd processor without requiring special application support.
Here's to you, Mac OS X!
http://futrellsoftware.com/pbeta.jpg
I feel like this one best exemplifies the time during which Mac OS X originated: the Matrix was incredibly popular, as was Quake III. But most popular of all were PC and Mac users trolling each other about which operating system was best, the so called MHz myth, etc. I was 14 years old when I took this screenshot, and oh boy was I an Apple evangelist reaching absurd proportions.
Really I think most of us were still very worried that Apple would go under, and despite being "really cool", OS X had serious problems that wouldn't necessarily make you optimistic. It was slow. Window resizing was really painful, and 3D games tended to run much slower in OS X than in OS9. There was a dearth of software and even much of Apple's own software was not yet compatible.
On the other hand it was really stable, right from the start. Running OS 9, the expectation was that it wasn't "if" your computer froze, but rather "when" it froze. Without protected memory (applications could corrupt eachother) and without pre-emptive multitasking (applications could go into infinite loops refusing to give back control to the OS) the operating system was just really unstable, and frankly it was getting archaic compared to Windows. OS X and its unix underpinnings with a modern pre-emptive multitasking scheduler and protected memory not only brought stability, but also finally allowed Apple's dual processor systems to actually take advantage of the 2nd processor without requiring special application support.
Here's to you, Mac OS X!
http://futrellsoftware.com/pbeta.jpg
JoeG4
Mar 18, 07:49 PM
Hrm where do I go with this one.
The iPhone is a nice phone! It turned out that if I had the $285 necessary to buy an iPhone ($200 + $50 tax + 35 activation), I could get it on a monthly plan similar to what I just got my free G2 for.
I don't work, I'm a student.. and while that means I could probably live without a smartphone it was a $15/mo difference. I'm using a G5 I bought for $50, and my internet service costs me $15 a month (it's DSL too!).. heck even my tv service is rather cheap.
If I could've gotten an iPhone at the time, I would've. Right now? If Steve Jobs offered me a free iPhone in exchange for my G2? Hahah sure :D
I do have my beefs, I think iOS is kinda boring and iTunes is clunky as all get out, but i love the docks and the hardware is really nice.
That said, I really never thought I'd like having a hardware keyboard so much until I had one o_O Oh well. Everyone I know has an iPhone, bar 2 or 3 people. Most of them also have MacBook Pros :P
Yea so at the end of the day it sucks but I'll live with it. When I become an engineer I'll be able to afford all the shiny Apple stuff I want :D AND I don't feel like I'm having to "live with it".. shoot I've got like the 3rd nicest smartphone on the market and it didn't cost me a dime. Woot! (Well, it did cost $15 more a month!.. actually the iPhone would've also cost about $15-20 more a month, and that $285)
It's been an awesome phone though, no lag anywhere, it plays angry birds great, works great with music and internet, and I get 2 days of battery life solid. :)
The iPhone is a nice phone! It turned out that if I had the $285 necessary to buy an iPhone ($200 + $50 tax + 35 activation), I could get it on a monthly plan similar to what I just got my free G2 for.
I don't work, I'm a student.. and while that means I could probably live without a smartphone it was a $15/mo difference. I'm using a G5 I bought for $50, and my internet service costs me $15 a month (it's DSL too!).. heck even my tv service is rather cheap.
If I could've gotten an iPhone at the time, I would've. Right now? If Steve Jobs offered me a free iPhone in exchange for my G2? Hahah sure :D
I do have my beefs, I think iOS is kinda boring and iTunes is clunky as all get out, but i love the docks and the hardware is really nice.
That said, I really never thought I'd like having a hardware keyboard so much until I had one o_O Oh well. Everyone I know has an iPhone, bar 2 or 3 people. Most of them also have MacBook Pros :P
Yea so at the end of the day it sucks but I'll live with it. When I become an engineer I'll be able to afford all the shiny Apple stuff I want :D AND I don't feel like I'm having to "live with it".. shoot I've got like the 3rd nicest smartphone on the market and it didn't cost me a dime. Woot! (Well, it did cost $15 more a month!.. actually the iPhone would've also cost about $15-20 more a month, and that $285)
It's been an awesome phone though, no lag anywhere, it plays angry birds great, works great with music and internet, and I get 2 days of battery life solid. :)
starstreak
Jul 21, 06:40 PM
Ok yeah,yeah whatevers Apple. You need to do a hardware fix. Quit pointing fingers. Because unless you can tell me, the other phones in question sold 3million AND told their users that their phone is awesome cuz they made the attenna better, you're not gonna get me to stop thinking Apple is da bomb.
quadrakid
Sep 12, 12:57 AM
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9360/applenanoiphonefc0.th.gif (http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=applenanoiphonefc0.gif)
Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 2, 05:21 AM
Oh I don't know, just about everything? It is this insecurity thing again isn't it? Insecurity...? The only thing I'm insecure about at the moment is whether you are for real or just trolling... :confused:
The fewer the people in a nation, the easier it is to say they are the best or the worst in certain things. Get it?Who says we're best at anything. It's not a contest... :rolleyes:
Up here in the Nordic countries we're a small, fairly uniform, very rich, well-educated (to a degree - pun intended), technological advanced population. The marked might be small, but it's still a nice little marked.
Do you honestly see Apple pull out of a similar marked, let say New Your city, just because an unresolved quarrel with the local government...?
The fewer the people in a nation, the easier it is to say they are the best or the worst in certain things. Get it?Who says we're best at anything. It's not a contest... :rolleyes:
Up here in the Nordic countries we're a small, fairly uniform, very rich, well-educated (to a degree - pun intended), technological advanced population. The marked might be small, but it's still a nice little marked.
Do you honestly see Apple pull out of a similar marked, let say New Your city, just because an unresolved quarrel with the local government...?
maclaptop
Apr 16, 10:56 PM
And different browsers didn't appear for a long while I thought.
True. This is due to Apples desire to confine users to Safari.
Their dictatorial approach worked for quite some time. Finally user push back was too much, and Apple caved.
True. This is due to Apples desire to confine users to Safari.
Their dictatorial approach worked for quite some time. Finally user push back was too much, and Apple caved.
Knox
Jan 5, 06:25 PM
please admins, be sure to moderate this thread as to make sure NOBODY spoils anything... just to ruin the fun for everybody else...
Probably safest avoiding the forums to be honest, including this thread :)
Probably safest avoiding the forums to be honest, including this thread :)
El Cabong
Apr 14, 05:38 PM
And I can get a knife or fork at one of dozens of restaurants inside the terminal post security. What's your point?
Was that a pun?
Also, I'm sure that his intention was to let you know what a badass he is, because he can badassify innocuous silverware. He can probably also make a bomb out of a stick of butter. And artillery shells from a bag of oranges. Just don't mess with him, is what I'm trying to get at, here.
Also, remember that scene in 24 (http://www.24-fansite.com/), when Nina killed a guy on a plane with a plastic gift card? That's exactly why women should be banned from air travel. Until that day comes, I for one am glad that we have forward-thinking TSA agents frisking little girls like the future terrorists that they are. God bless them.
Was that a pun?
Also, I'm sure that his intention was to let you know what a badass he is, because he can badassify innocuous silverware. He can probably also make a bomb out of a stick of butter. And artillery shells from a bag of oranges. Just don't mess with him, is what I'm trying to get at, here.
Also, remember that scene in 24 (http://www.24-fansite.com/), when Nina killed a guy on a plane with a plastic gift card? That's exactly why women should be banned from air travel. Until that day comes, I for one am glad that we have forward-thinking TSA agents frisking little girls like the future terrorists that they are. God bless them.
cdallen
Mar 19, 06:36 AM
Today I've had some pretty interesting exchanges with other smart phone owners. I personally have an iPhone 4, I've had it for ages and love it. Pretty much everyone else I know has an Android phone of some kind. Now, people are always so damn keen to try and compete with my iPhone! I mean seriously, these people just come out of nowhere! I don't even show it off either, people just see me use it and start coming out with stuff.
For instance, one guy comes out with - "Oh so you have an iPhone 4, my HTC Desire is way better". When we ran some comparisons he was obliterated but refused to accept it lol. All I got was, "well you paid �500 for an overpaid Apple product that you need a case to use". Personally I've never had any antenna problems so anyway, moving on.
Another guy comes out with "You don't have a removable battery so if your phone crashes then you're screwed". Anyone here had their iPhone crash? If yes were you unable to get it sorted at an Apple store? This explanation didn't bode well with said Apple hater. :p
Some one else came out with "iPhone 4 is a brick". At first I thought he was joking but he soon turned serious, saying that the phone literally is shaped like a brick and has sharp edges which hurt your hand.
Another guy claimed that iPhones are awful because they don't have flash. To be honest, I don't really care for flash. The only thing I need flash for is Youtube which has its own app, and most shopping sites have their own dedicated apps anyway. Flash is a resource hog that would kill the battery. This of course was nonsense to the nexus owner.
I could go on but the shots people took just kept getting cheaper and cheaper, most reverting to "well you paid �500 for a phone, you must be crazy". I don't understand this. It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4. Its pretty sad, at the end of the day its just a phone. But people actually seem to hate Apple because they can't afford their products. Most of them admitted that had the iPhone been cheaper they'd buy one, hence they can't afford it so they are bitter.
Anyone else experienced this? I get similar problems when people see my Macbook Pro lol.
I've never, ever had a conversation about my phone with a random person in the street - let alone conduct comparison tests.
I'm guessing from your thread that you porbably love the iphone a bit too much... Get out and enjoy the world. Perhaps leave the phone at home!
For instance, one guy comes out with - "Oh so you have an iPhone 4, my HTC Desire is way better". When we ran some comparisons he was obliterated but refused to accept it lol. All I got was, "well you paid �500 for an overpaid Apple product that you need a case to use". Personally I've never had any antenna problems so anyway, moving on.
Another guy comes out with "You don't have a removable battery so if your phone crashes then you're screwed". Anyone here had their iPhone crash? If yes were you unable to get it sorted at an Apple store? This explanation didn't bode well with said Apple hater. :p
Some one else came out with "iPhone 4 is a brick". At first I thought he was joking but he soon turned serious, saying that the phone literally is shaped like a brick and has sharp edges which hurt your hand.
Another guy claimed that iPhones are awful because they don't have flash. To be honest, I don't really care for flash. The only thing I need flash for is Youtube which has its own app, and most shopping sites have their own dedicated apps anyway. Flash is a resource hog that would kill the battery. This of course was nonsense to the nexus owner.
I could go on but the shots people took just kept getting cheaper and cheaper, most reverting to "well you paid �500 for a phone, you must be crazy". I don't understand this. It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4. Its pretty sad, at the end of the day its just a phone. But people actually seem to hate Apple because they can't afford their products. Most of them admitted that had the iPhone been cheaper they'd buy one, hence they can't afford it so they are bitter.
Anyone else experienced this? I get similar problems when people see my Macbook Pro lol.
I've never, ever had a conversation about my phone with a random person in the street - let alone conduct comparison tests.
I'm guessing from your thread that you porbably love the iphone a bit too much... Get out and enjoy the world. Perhaps leave the phone at home!
dukebound85
Mar 5, 03:40 PM
they aren't
jrtc27
Apr 30, 12:59 PM
Do you mean you like the change, or the reverse of the change?
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
skunk
Apr 21, 11:45 AM
If the score is X, you can change the score to X-1 and X+1. If you change it to X-1 then press up, it'll display as X+1 which removes your down vote and adds your upvote.In other words, there is no allowance for apathy. I can't be arsed with a system that doesn't allow for apathy. **** that.
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
mattwolfmatt
Sep 28, 04:57 PM
If this is the iPhone of houses, I guess my house is the Zune of houses. Or perhaps a 1st Gen nano . . . old, small, and ugly.
arn
Apr 21, 10:37 AM
Hi,
You will notice a new feature we are testing. Each post now has an up/down arrow associated with it. Clicking on either arrow will record your vote for that post. Right now, the votes are simply tallied next to the post, but may be used in other ways in the future.
- You must be logged in for your vote to register
- Criteria for up/down voting should be relatively obvious. Posts you like or would like to see more of, you can up vote. Those you dislike you can downvote.
- Please continue to use the "report" post button to report spam and other rules vioations.
- Assume that your votes are public, even though at the moment there is no way to see how people have voted. That may change.
arn
You will notice a new feature we are testing. Each post now has an up/down arrow associated with it. Clicking on either arrow will record your vote for that post. Right now, the votes are simply tallied next to the post, but may be used in other ways in the future.
- You must be logged in for your vote to register
- Criteria for up/down voting should be relatively obvious. Posts you like or would like to see more of, you can up vote. Those you dislike you can downvote.
- Please continue to use the "report" post button to report spam and other rules vioations.
- Assume that your votes are public, even though at the moment there is no way to see how people have voted. That may change.
arn
Les Kern
Aug 4, 07:56 AM
This is why I do not see "electric cars" gaining mainstream popularity any time soon.
Because they don't want you to.
We should have had electric cars for short-haul 20 years ago.
It's all a big scam, and most Americans don't even know they are the chumps.
Because they don't want you to.
We should have had electric cars for short-haul 20 years ago.
It's all a big scam, and most Americans don't even know they are the chumps.
Lennholm
Apr 16, 09:09 AM
People talk about a so-called 'reality distortion field' about Steve Jobs and yet everyday we get people blatantly ignoring truth because it doesn't fit with their own personal world view.
Yes, there were Palms, and Blackberries, Nokia's, Sony-Ericssons, and Panasonics etc before the iPhone but when we all saw the iPhone everyone instantly knew that was the future; touch-screen, icon based, intuitive, with an emphasis on both design and usability.
You might not like the fact that Apple revolutionized the phone market but history says otherwise.
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
Yes, there were Palms, and Blackberries, Nokia's, Sony-Ericssons, and Panasonics etc before the iPhone but when we all saw the iPhone everyone instantly knew that was the future; touch-screen, icon based, intuitive, with an emphasis on both design and usability.
You might not like the fact that Apple revolutionized the phone market but history says otherwise.
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.