currentinterest
Apr 15, 04:58 PM
Yep, I remember all those fake, poorly photoshopped iPod Nanos and Mac Minis as well. These may very well be real, or could be an early version.
Chundles
Sep 12, 02:56 AM
From engadget (as i couldn't be bothered to look them up myself :P)
7:00AM - Hawaii
10:00AM - Pacific
11:00AM - Mountain
12:00PM - Central
1:00PM - Eastern
5:00PM - GMT
6:00PM - London
7:00PM - Paris
2:00AM - Tokyo (September 13th)
Keep going... All 13th September:
5am - New Zealand
3am - Eastern Australia
2:30am - Central Australia
1am - Western Australia
7:00AM - Hawaii
10:00AM - Pacific
11:00AM - Mountain
12:00PM - Central
1:00PM - Eastern
5:00PM - GMT
6:00PM - London
7:00PM - Paris
2:00AM - Tokyo (September 13th)
Keep going... All 13th September:
5am - New Zealand
3am - Eastern Australia
2:30am - Central Australia
1am - Western Australia
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.
wingnut8
Apr 25, 02:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
4S would be dumb. Every phone from here on out is going to be faster. No need for the "speed" added on the the end.
4S would be dumb. Every phone from here on out is going to be faster. No need for the "speed" added on the the end.
vizkiz
Apr 15, 04:05 PM
This would be popular with suicides (cut throat sharp edges) and PC users (device has numerous huge holes which may or not have a function).
Which holes are those? All the holes in those pictures correspond correctly to the holes on my 3G.
Bottom: Speaker, screw, dock, screw, microphone
Side: Volume rocker, vibrate switch
Back: Camera
I would assume the big gap on the side is supposed to be an SD slot.
Volume rocker...
Which holes are those? All the holes in those pictures correspond correctly to the holes on my 3G.
Bottom: Speaker, screw, dock, screw, microphone
Side: Volume rocker, vibrate switch
Back: Camera
I would assume the big gap on the side is supposed to be an SD slot.
Volume rocker...
aross99
Jan 11, 10:32 PM
At first, I got a chuckle when I read this on their site. Turning off a wall of display is one thing, but what they did to the presenters (especially Motorolla) is inexcusable. They took it way to far...
To be honest with you, I can't believe they blogged about it afterwards..
To be honest with you, I can't believe they blogged about it afterwards..
Blorzoga
May 3, 10:27 PM
Interesting how none of the scenes in the ad uses a white iPad.
MCIowaRulz
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
Maybe the reason why they are having problems with licensing is because of gTunes:D
http://www.androidfreeware.net/download-gtunes-music.html
http://www.androidfreeware.net/download-gtunes-music.html
arn
Apr 21, 09:51 PM
I don't see the ability to vote down posts ending well. I think that a "Thanks" system would be much, much better.
So same system but without the down vote button at all?
arn
So same system but without the down vote button at all?
arn
err404
May 2, 09:47 AM
I kinda liked the fact i could look at where I've been with my phone.
Sorta. Since the db wasn't meant to track you, it was not very good for this task. Any tracking info had to be inferred from the cell location data.
This would be like trying to use the Google Maps caching in Android for location tracking.
Sorta. Since the db wasn't meant to track you, it was not very good for this task. Any tracking info had to be inferred from the cell location data.
This would be like trying to use the Google Maps caching in Android for location tracking.
MacRumorUser
Nov 17, 12:27 PM
Reality check, bought World at War - i didnt play it for more than 1hour
bought Modern Warfare 2 - played for about 1.5 hours
Now i'm tempted to pick this up even though I havent finished any of those others simply because the game supports stereoscopic 3D...
Anyone tried 3D?
bought Modern Warfare 2 - played for about 1.5 hours
Now i'm tempted to pick this up even though I havent finished any of those others simply because the game supports stereoscopic 3D...
Anyone tried 3D?
Pontavignon
May 4, 08:07 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
+1
And the camera should take pix when you peel back the cover, use face recognition to identify the user and instantly open to the right account.
+1
And the camera should take pix when you peel back the cover, use face recognition to identify the user and instantly open to the right account.
iMikeT
Aug 7, 08:15 PM
Here comes my 23" display.
aokiqiao
Oct 13, 05:01 PM
After reading the above comments about having dropped calls I can also vouch to say that AT&T's network and or the iphone FAILS at keeping a clear call or even keeping a line at all. The reason I say this is because I've had Alltel up until the switch to verizon since last week. I say up until last week because my contract ended with alltel and I did not want to renew with verzion. I had a dropped call with alltel/verizon maybe every month or two and that was because I was in a room deep inside the hopsital (where I work)where even the radio couldnt get a station. Im not saying its AT&T completely because Ive had multiple coworkers that Ive asked that have both dumbphones and smartphones with AT&T (other than an iphone) and theyve all told me they hardly ever get dropped calls. So it might be both AT&T and Apple that have to work something out to fix this. All I know is when I look at my cities coverage map where the signal should be strongest I know the info is a load of BS. Sometimes I make calls and the persons voice is crackling or theres a voice echo or fades in and out and of course it drops the call. I live in a desert in west texas where its flat, harldy ANY trees or buildings and it still FAILS. Not only that, sometimes Ill be completely still looking at my phone and itll switch from 4 bars of 3G to 2 bars of EDGE to no EDGE back and forth.
Also, sometimes my friends will get just portions (one or two words) of my text messages. This happen to anyone else?
Im on OS 3.1.2
Also, sometimes my friends will get just portions (one or two words) of my text messages. This happen to anyone else?
Im on OS 3.1.2
rtheb
Apr 30, 01:32 PM
I like the buttons as well and Apple knows that you still need to design for the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) purchasing the product.
logandzwon
Apr 18, 02:00 PM
It looks like the only way M$ is "catching up" is by copying technologies with which we are already familiar. As Bertrand Serlet suggested, maybe M$ really DID start up their photocopiers :D
I saw a video on YouTube entitled "The Real Windows Vista (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QdGt3ix2CQ)", in which the audio from a (series of) M$ lecture(s) was combined with video showing a Mac user demonstrating the then-unreleased features of Vista on a Mac. It was originally in three parts, and at the end of each part the specific technologies mentioned were identified, as well as the year in which they were introduced. It appears also that, as Mr. Serlet also mentioned, "if you can't innovate, you must imitate, but it's never quite the same."
Heh, I've seen that video it's classic. However, if you were to say fair-is-fair, MS publicly announced their road map for what became Vista before XP even came out. Apple KNEW what MS was working on. No body knew what Apple was working on.
I saw a video on YouTube entitled "The Real Windows Vista (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QdGt3ix2CQ)", in which the audio from a (series of) M$ lecture(s) was combined with video showing a Mac user demonstrating the then-unreleased features of Vista on a Mac. It was originally in three parts, and at the end of each part the specific technologies mentioned were identified, as well as the year in which they were introduced. It appears also that, as Mr. Serlet also mentioned, "if you can't innovate, you must imitate, but it's never quite the same."
Heh, I've seen that video it's classic. However, if you were to say fair-is-fair, MS publicly announced their road map for what became Vista before XP even came out. Apple KNEW what MS was working on. No body knew what Apple was working on.
pmz
Apr 16, 10:07 AM
A quick read through this thread is proof of why I normally don't bother reading or posting here.
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
batchtaster
May 3, 09:37 PM
I'll buy one when it gets a capacitive pressure based screen/stylus (Like the HTC Flyer)
I'll buy one when it has an 8MHz processor, 13-inch monochrome CRT screen and a big fat "Turbo" button.
I'll buy one when it has an 8MHz processor, 13-inch monochrome CRT screen and a big fat "Turbo" button.
diamornte
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
The 4s will be a 4 with the 3.7 screen, and a A5 chip. That is it. Period.
How can you be so certain of this as to say "That is it. Period."? Sources plz?
How can you be so certain of this as to say "That is it. Period."? Sources plz?
macman2790
Nov 16, 01:08 PM
this is not going to happen in the near future. This probably has a chance if Apple's notebook marketshare doubles from what it is now. They might have to have two chipmakers to satisfy demand in about 5 years..........but now this is just bs, i wish digitimes would stop speculating about apple rumors because their always way, way off.
840quadra
Nov 24, 01:51 PM
what a pitiful thanksgiving sale apple provided.
nothing to wow about.
You are correct!
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
nothing to wow about.
You are correct!
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
snberk103
Apr 15, 02:38 PM
...
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
...
My only claim is that something the TSA is doing is working to help prevent hijackings. This was in response to some arguments that nothing airport security was doing was in fact useful. If you go back, you will see I quoted both TSA and European stats, not just TSA. And that while there may have been no passenger hijackings in the 90s in the USA, there were a couple in Europe, and one in Japan. And then nothing in Europe and Japan or the USA since 9/11. Which I believe is due to increased airport security, similar to what the TSA does.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
...
My only claim is that something the TSA is doing is working to help prevent hijackings. This was in response to some arguments that nothing airport security was doing was in fact useful. If you go back, you will see I quoted both TSA and European stats, not just TSA. And that while there may have been no passenger hijackings in the 90s in the USA, there were a couple in Europe, and one in Japan. And then nothing in Europe and Japan or the USA since 9/11. Which I believe is due to increased airport security, similar to what the TSA does.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
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.
Jaymes
Jan 15, 01:43 PM
And we have to pay MORE for the iPhone update?!
Maybe I missed something, but I thought it was a free update for the iPhone but a $20 update for the iPod Touch?
Maybe I missed something, but I thought it was a free update for the iPhone but a $20 update for the iPod Touch?
