Maxiseller
Nov 16, 11:51 AM
I'm sure that somewhere in their headquarters Apple keeps a build of OS X on AMD like they did with Intel. But Idon't think that anyone outside of Apple will see it at least for several years.
Would it even require a different build? After all, it's still x86 architecture no?
Would it even require a different build? After all, it's still x86 architecture no?
Counterfit
Jul 29, 04:03 AM
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
That would be like Subaru selling FWD cars again...it's not what the brand is about.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
That would be like Subaru selling FWD cars again...it's not what the brand is about.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
eawmp1
May 4, 02:58 PM
170 accidental death in U.S. in 2007 (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=wGruFi37M52&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=1&age2=21&agetext=1-21&category=UNI&_debug=0) and I can't ask about firearms in the home to assess if there is a trigger lock or if the gun is locked away?
Genius.
Genius.
iGary
Sep 25, 09:44 PM
I have an experiment for those that say "My car runs fine on Chevron gas."
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
I'd answer this, but you know, I'm tired of fighting sarcasm.
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
I'd answer this, but you know, I'm tired of fighting sarcasm.
citizenzen
Apr 15, 09:56 PM
Typical promotion of homosexuality. What else is new. They gotta find new ways to bankrupt us here in California.
I'm beginning to think that on a lonely, quiet Friday night this is the most action that Calidude can hope for.
I'm 50 ... and married, Calidude.
What's your excuse?
I'm beginning to think that on a lonely, quiet Friday night this is the most action that Calidude can hope for.
I'm 50 ... and married, Calidude.
What's your excuse?
yellow
Jan 15, 04:59 PM
Hee-hee.. I was just watching the MBA guided tour on the Apple site and they made sure to tell you that it ships with Mac OS X Leopard and iLife 08.
First thought.. I would NOT want to be trying to make movies or DVDs on that thing.
Second thought.. I sure hope that I'd be smart enough to order a SuperDrive with it so I can reinstall the OS or burn those DVDs. :)
They should really just jack the price up $100 and make you opt out of getting one with the unit during the config process.
First thought.. I would NOT want to be trying to make movies or DVDs on that thing.
Second thought.. I sure hope that I'd be smart enough to order a SuperDrive with it so I can reinstall the OS or burn those DVDs. :)
They should really just jack the price up $100 and make you opt out of getting one with the unit during the config process.
GeekLawyer
May 3, 01:52 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?Because you then sign a contract that says how you agree to use it. This is outside of that agreement. If you want to sign an agreement to use the data in a different way, I'm sure the carrier will accommodate you. But get your wallet open.
geenosr
Sep 28, 02:52 PM
Did anybody see an ATT cell tower on his property so SJ can use his iPhone with enough signal strength?
The windows joke was a good one!
The windows joke was a good one!
Mitch1984
Oct 2, 04:02 PM
I can't believe that people are disgruntled that we are forced to use iTunes with iPod.
iTunes is brilliant.
It's not as if we are forced to use something really crummy like WMP with the worlds favourite MP3 player.
"Unnamed company"
We all know who that is....Real.
& Microsoft.
iTunes is brilliant.
It's not as if we are forced to use something really crummy like WMP with the worlds favourite MP3 player.
"Unnamed company"
We all know who that is....Real.
& Microsoft.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 06:52 PM
Best Buy isn't having a sale today. And this is a national holiday. Its Victory over the Confederates Day when the US defeated the southern traitors and General Lee surrendered.
Clix Pix
Apr 21, 01:16 PM
Too much like Facebook to suit me. I think it's really rather silly.
Applejuiced
Apr 22, 09:02 PM
Working on the IE issues.
arn
Thank you.
On the iPhone safari browser it works fine.
arn
Thank you.
On the iPhone safari browser it works fine.
yg17
Apr 21, 12:29 PM
And it didn't even take me long to find an example:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12435223&postcount=46
What did he say in that post that is so deserving of the negative ratings?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12435223&postcount=46
What did he say in that post that is so deserving of the negative ratings?
minnesotamacman
Sep 12, 07:43 AM
Very good point. I've never seen it called the iTunes Store before by Apple. It can't be a coincidence.
I'm sure this was cause for much discussion at Apple. iMovie is taken obviously. iTunes is already very well known, so they must have decided to just stick with that. The "i" doesn't really mean a whole lot anymore anyway (iWeb = Internet Web?!), so why should the "Tunes". ;)
What about iMedia???
I'm sure this was cause for much discussion at Apple. iMovie is taken obviously. iTunes is already very well known, so they must have decided to just stick with that. The "i" doesn't really mean a whole lot anymore anyway (iWeb = Internet Web?!), so why should the "Tunes". ;)
What about iMedia???
FreeState
Sep 12, 02:51 AM
Does anyone know what time this even will be in GMT?
GMT-7
(edited to fix errrr)
GMT-7
(edited to fix errrr)
Anuba
Jan 12, 05:44 PM
Someone asked you what you were hoping for, and that's it? You call it not revolutionary, but you can't give a single idea of what you think revolutionary is? :confused:
Ideally, a revolutionary product is a completely new concept, something nobody thought of before. If all the iPhone mockups out there had missed the mark, the iPhone would be revolutionary, but there were quite a few that were based on the idea of a huge display and no keys. The iPhone is a mishmash of existing concepts that have been refined, polished and rolled into one. While the multi-touch screen is a milestone of sorts, other aspects of the iPhone are very yesterday. The modest memory, for one, and for another the absence of 3G which is somewhat of a shocker - 3G has been a staple of top-of-the-line phones for years now.
Did I miss the part of the keynote where Steve said this was aimed at the business market? :eek:
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
Ideally, a revolutionary product is a completely new concept, something nobody thought of before. If all the iPhone mockups out there had missed the mark, the iPhone would be revolutionary, but there were quite a few that were based on the idea of a huge display and no keys. The iPhone is a mishmash of existing concepts that have been refined, polished and rolled into one. While the multi-touch screen is a milestone of sorts, other aspects of the iPhone are very yesterday. The modest memory, for one, and for another the absence of 3G which is somewhat of a shocker - 3G has been a staple of top-of-the-line phones for years now.
Did I miss the part of the keynote where Steve said this was aimed at the business market? :eek:
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
evilbert420
Oct 20, 09:32 AM
When will we see these numbers broken out into business/enterprise vs. consumer?
Seriously, Apple is pretty much a non-factor in the enterprise. There simply is no integration, no large-scale server application use other than web, and few enterprise-ready applications. There's no Biztalk/Websphere/SQL/Oracle running on Apple outside of a few educational institutions. Microsoft and IBM own the enterprise and considering Apple in an enterprise outside of some limited marketing/advertising/media/audio verticals is absurd. I personally deal with 130 companies that have 500-250k computers and Apple is simply not a factor at all.
However, in the consumer world it's a very different story. Apple has the potential to continue making huge inroads into the consumer/home user/SOHO segments where the lack of enterprise applications means little if anything.
I'd like to see the numbers of how Apple compares in the home segment rather than just the overall. Why can't we see this broken out?
Seriously, Apple is pretty much a non-factor in the enterprise. There simply is no integration, no large-scale server application use other than web, and few enterprise-ready applications. There's no Biztalk/Websphere/SQL/Oracle running on Apple outside of a few educational institutions. Microsoft and IBM own the enterprise and considering Apple in an enterprise outside of some limited marketing/advertising/media/audio verticals is absurd. I personally deal with 130 companies that have 500-250k computers and Apple is simply not a factor at all.
However, in the consumer world it's a very different story. Apple has the potential to continue making huge inroads into the consumer/home user/SOHO segments where the lack of enterprise applications means little if anything.
I'd like to see the numbers of how Apple compares in the home segment rather than just the overall. Why can't we see this broken out?
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:28 PM
I'd say that's pretty plausible.
I agree, you're good!
I agree, you're good!
cybermiguel
Nov 16, 09:59 PM
who wants to run amd anyway?
I would.
You see...ATi's integrated graphics solution is WAAYY BETTER than Intel 945 integrated graphics solution, so, it would be the perfect match for a lowcost laptop: Turion CPU and an ATi chipset.
Here's a page with some IGP benchmarks: http://kettya.com/notebook2/gpu_ranking.htm
I would.
You see...ATi's integrated graphics solution is WAAYY BETTER than Intel 945 integrated graphics solution, so, it would be the perfect match for a lowcost laptop: Turion CPU and an ATi chipset.
Here's a page with some IGP benchmarks: http://kettya.com/notebook2/gpu_ranking.htm
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.
Cassie
Oct 11, 04:51 PM
wake me up when they release a full-function smartphone/pda that runs "OS X lite" and is a fully featured phone, iPod and PDA (for iLife syncing, etc)
Did you see my earlier post?:p
Did you see my earlier post?:p
kirky29
Mar 24, 03:10 PM
Happy Birthday, OS X! Thank you for making me enjoy using my computer :)
phil83
Jan 10, 03:23 PM
I agree that was pretty stupid thing to do, maybe at home for fun, but not a the worlds largest electronic trade show.
Surely
Apr 6, 09:58 AM
Post Your Last Purchase XVI (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1085963&page=90) at 2248 posts....time for a new thread. Yay.:D
And to start this off: I bought some NY strip steaks for my new grill......they've been marinating overnight.
http://www.csumeats.com/images/NY%20Strip%20Steaks.jpg
Meat is murder......tasty, tasty murder.
And to start this off: I bought some NY strip steaks for my new grill......they've been marinating overnight.
http://www.csumeats.com/images/NY%20Strip%20Steaks.jpg
Meat is murder......tasty, tasty murder.
No comments:
Post a Comment