goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Neodym
Oct 3, 05:28 PM
Unfortunately this is EXACTLY why Apple ISN'T producing a headless mid-range Mac. They will lose out tremendously on display sales. They either want to sell you a display within the unit (iMac, MacBooks) or sell you a display with the unit (Mini, Pro). Mini users will buy one because A. they're in the store and B. don't know any better. Pro users will buy one because they are top-of-the line, beautiful screens and they, generally, have money to burn. Mid-range users (and prosumers) know well enough that they can get a cheap, good-enough monitor for $200 from NewEgg or eBay (for the daring). Instead, we prosumers either have to settle for the iMac or splurge on the Mac Pro.
Mmmh - i see it a little different:
Why shouldn't the so-called "prosumers" be interested in beautiful and top-of-the-line monitors as well as the "pros"? Even worse - the target clientel for a Pro computer often earn their living on those machines and they might need raw power, but not necessarily a "beautiful" screen - especially if the old one would still do its work.
Thus i would suspect prosumers to be more willing to "burn some money" for a nice Apple screen just because it fits their lifestyle, than someone who has to invest to earn money on it. And don't forget how Apple introduced the mini - it was targetted at users who ALREADY OWN a monitor (and keyboard and mouse).
So one of the main target groups for Apple monitors would be exactly the clientel which currently is not able to find something proper: A more powerful computer than the mini, but less pricey than a Mac Pro.
Therefore the gap between a mini and a Mac Pro is a little big indeed! Not only because of the initial purchase cost, but also because of the cost following when you have to buy "pro" equipment (like e.g. memory) at "pro" prices as well...!
The iMac aims at a completely different audience here and is a good complement, but never a replacement for a mid-class machine.
If Apple wants to continue to grow they HAVE to differentiate their lineup a little more! Personally i would not mind if they would do it in the stylish area and bring up some acrylic beauty again or even introduce some really new (or at least different) ideas. But it is not that important as long as the they eventually close that huge gap!
Regards
Neodym
Mmmh - i see it a little different:
Why shouldn't the so-called "prosumers" be interested in beautiful and top-of-the-line monitors as well as the "pros"? Even worse - the target clientel for a Pro computer often earn their living on those machines and they might need raw power, but not necessarily a "beautiful" screen - especially if the old one would still do its work.
Thus i would suspect prosumers to be more willing to "burn some money" for a nice Apple screen just because it fits their lifestyle, than someone who has to invest to earn money on it. And don't forget how Apple introduced the mini - it was targetted at users who ALREADY OWN a monitor (and keyboard and mouse).
So one of the main target groups for Apple monitors would be exactly the clientel which currently is not able to find something proper: A more powerful computer than the mini, but less pricey than a Mac Pro.
Therefore the gap between a mini and a Mac Pro is a little big indeed! Not only because of the initial purchase cost, but also because of the cost following when you have to buy "pro" equipment (like e.g. memory) at "pro" prices as well...!
The iMac aims at a completely different audience here and is a good complement, but never a replacement for a mid-class machine.
If Apple wants to continue to grow they HAVE to differentiate their lineup a little more! Personally i would not mind if they would do it in the stylish area and bring up some acrylic beauty again or even introduce some really new (or at least different) ideas. But it is not that important as long as the they eventually close that huge gap!
Regards
Neodym
Northgrove
May 3, 01:49 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
spillproof
Oct 6, 12:29 PM
Getting back to the actual advertisement. What self-respecting advertising professional would use someone else's tagline like that.
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
I disagree. It is a satirical and pokes fun of AT&T and Apple while giving facts. It gets you to think, which is the goal of an advertisement.
I like this commercial and hope it makes AT&T a little more scared that they are failing. (Or I could be bias for my love of satires and dislike for AT&T :cool:)
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
Just one?
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
I disagree. It is a satirical and pokes fun of AT&T and Apple while giving facts. It gets you to think, which is the goal of an advertisement.
I like this commercial and hope it makes AT&T a little more scared that they are failing. (Or I could be bias for my love of satires and dislike for AT&T :cool:)
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
Just one?
Apple Corps
Sep 30, 11:38 PM
...If Jobs wanted a modern building - which by the way, I prefer to Jackling House - then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes...
That house was a dilapidated piece of junk with little "history". The local conservationists and planning authorities had to raise hell about something to justify their existence.
BTW - there are not that many large plots in the area. Steve earned the money - he bought the property - get the clods out of the way.
Steve does not suffer fools :rolleyes:
That house was a dilapidated piece of junk with little "history". The local conservationists and planning authorities had to raise hell about something to justify their existence.
BTW - there are not that many large plots in the area. Steve earned the money - he bought the property - get the clods out of the way.
Steve does not suffer fools :rolleyes:
thegman1234
Jan 2, 12:46 AM
No, the chip in the iPhone will not handle LTE. LTE, while being developed by the same group the developed HSPA, is NOT the same tech and requires all new hardware.
Also, the iPhone 4 is not capable of working on upgraded networks. It does not support anything higher than HSPA (does not support HSPA+)
Not saying you're correct or incorrect, just saying that the information I had been dealt doesn't support your statement.
Verizon and Apple have at least 2 solutions they could implement to enable simultaneous voice and data on CDMA.
Well, once again, supposedly LTE will allow for simultaneous voice/data.
I for one will be staying with AT&T if and when Verizon gets the iPhone. I'll also be laughing while Verizon suffers the same fate that AT&T did as millions of users hit their network at once. I don't care how "strong" Verizon's network is, I don't think they're ready for the heavy hit they're going to take.
Also, the iPhone 4 is not capable of working on upgraded networks. It does not support anything higher than HSPA (does not support HSPA+)
Not saying you're correct or incorrect, just saying that the information I had been dealt doesn't support your statement.
Verizon and Apple have at least 2 solutions they could implement to enable simultaneous voice and data on CDMA.
Well, once again, supposedly LTE will allow for simultaneous voice/data.
I for one will be staying with AT&T if and when Verizon gets the iPhone. I'll also be laughing while Verizon suffers the same fate that AT&T did as millions of users hit their network at once. I don't care how "strong" Verizon's network is, I don't think they're ready for the heavy hit they're going to take.
turbobass
Apr 5, 03:27 PM
brilliant! i find myself "surfing" free apps to find certain iAds. I've always wanted a database of all of the iADs in one place to reference and inspire. I see 2 in the macrumors screen shot that I personally have worked on. Cool!
Congratulations sir or ma'am, you are the one human being on the planet who can actually call this "brilliant" and have a use for it that is not completely retarded and/or make me wish a meteor would hit earth.
Congratulations sir or ma'am, you are the one human being on the planet who can actually call this "brilliant" and have a use for it that is not completely retarded and/or make me wish a meteor would hit earth.
twoodcc
Dec 10, 09:35 PM
For an H50, that's still too high temps for an OC. My 930, under -smp 8 settings with an H50 runs at 65C and 38C idle.
what case do you have?
i'm actually have problems with my northbridge temps on the asus. i think it's the motherboard. right now i have the case open and a box fan blowing air on it
what case do you have?
i'm actually have problems with my northbridge temps on the asus. i think it's the motherboard. right now i have the case open and a box fan blowing air on it
hob
Jan 9, 03:59 PM
Sorry guys. After all that, I got a little lost in myself and made a stupid post.
Sorry sorry sorry!
Sorry sorry sorry!
ppilone
Apr 5, 03:10 PM
Maybe the winter interns held an app contest and the winner was guaranteed an app in the app store... :confused:
dr_lha
Oct 3, 03:49 PM
lets hope for a great keynote:
1- new Mac without display, performance would be better than imac, and not as much $$ as mac pro. basically a mid sized tower good enough for mid level use on graphics, games and much more. something upgradable by the end user.
Not going to happen. You realise that Apple doesn't give a crap about the 100 nerds out there that want to be able to upgrade their graphics cards?
They know that people who buy computers, tend to simply buy a new one rather than "upgrade parts". The only people who upgrade parts of their computers are gamers, and they aren't a serious market segment Apple will go for with a mid range tower.
Its a small market segment that will cannibalise both iMac and Mac Pro sales if introduced. Anyone who wants a headless Mac out there is nicely covered by the Mac Mini. I know its not the computer "for you", but you have to realise that "you" are not the mass market that Apple is going for.
1- new Mac without display, performance would be better than imac, and not as much $$ as mac pro. basically a mid sized tower good enough for mid level use on graphics, games and much more. something upgradable by the end user.
Not going to happen. You realise that Apple doesn't give a crap about the 100 nerds out there that want to be able to upgrade their graphics cards?
They know that people who buy computers, tend to simply buy a new one rather than "upgrade parts". The only people who upgrade parts of their computers are gamers, and they aren't a serious market segment Apple will go for with a mid range tower.
Its a small market segment that will cannibalise both iMac and Mac Pro sales if introduced. Anyone who wants a headless Mac out there is nicely covered by the Mac Mini. I know its not the computer "for you", but you have to realise that "you" are not the mass market that Apple is going for.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 10:29 PM
I think this would be a better way to do it. Perhaps it could be called the "Thank you" or "Helpful" button.
I agree. And there should be some kind of count of "thanks" for each member. And it can give us different "levels" based on our thankfulness. Kind of like how we achieve different statices based on our post count.
I agree. And there should be some kind of count of "thanks" for each member. And it can give us different "levels" based on our thankfulness. Kind of like how we achieve different statices based on our post count.
Aeolius
Oct 4, 09:05 PM
Fair enough. Three of my children were born in China, while a fourth was born in Taiwan. I have seen plenty of families living in ruins, huts, and caves in my journeys.
rcandre2
Jul 21, 03:20 PM
If this is the case then everyone should be complaining to every single cell phone manufacturer and demand a recall from them too. I don't hear or see that, though.
Oh you silly goose... that is because every other manufacturer's phones are not dropping calls... that is just one of the new things the iPhone is "changing again." It's funny because I've owned dozens and dozens of phones throughout the years including the iPhone 2G, 3G and 3GS and never experienced this garbage...
Oh you silly goose... that is because every other manufacturer's phones are not dropping calls... that is just one of the new things the iPhone is "changing again." It's funny because I've owned dozens and dozens of phones throughout the years including the iPhone 2G, 3G and 3GS and never experienced this garbage...
emoeric
Dec 13, 03:27 PM
Right. One of the problems people have when they try to predict what Apple might do is they assume the past = the future. "Oh, Apple only does yearly updates, so this rumor is impossible." Well, Apple does what it does . . . until it doesn't. They don't do books, but now they do. They don't do movies, but now they do, etc.
Apple is not a MacRumors poster stubbornly sticking to the only thing they know. Apple changes as market conditions change. If they think they can increase profitability and market share by making semi-yearly phone updates, they are going to switch to semi-yearly phone updates. Simple as that.
So a Q1 2011 Verizon phone is quite possible.
The thing I believe we can agree on as well is the fact that LTE is not coming to iphone until atleast 2012. It's way too early of a technology for them to adopt it. I'll agree with your points but counter your general hypothesis with one side note: no LTE until 2012.
Apple is not a MacRumors poster stubbornly sticking to the only thing they know. Apple changes as market conditions change. If they think they can increase profitability and market share by making semi-yearly phone updates, they are going to switch to semi-yearly phone updates. Simple as that.
So a Q1 2011 Verizon phone is quite possible.
The thing I believe we can agree on as well is the fact that LTE is not coming to iphone until atleast 2012. It's way too early of a technology for them to adopt it. I'll agree with your points but counter your general hypothesis with one side note: no LTE until 2012.
hazza.jockel
Nov 16, 09:36 AM
I bought the normal addition a few days back and have just finished the campaign but also played a few rounds of multiplayer and zombies.
IMO it is way better then W@W but not better maybe even worse then MW2.
I think i just prefer modern guns compared to old style weapons.
The campaign is well thought out and has a good story line. Only down side is a couple of glitches i stumbled upon. For example in the level where you drive the gun boat down the river after i got out the sound of the M60(or whatever machine gun is on the boat) stayed on and was way louder then everything else. Even when i died it stayed on. really frustrating.
The top-down zombie mode is pure awesome.
IMO it is way better then W@W but not better maybe even worse then MW2.
I think i just prefer modern guns compared to old style weapons.
The campaign is well thought out and has a good story line. Only down side is a couple of glitches i stumbled upon. For example in the level where you drive the gun boat down the river after i got out the sound of the M60(or whatever machine gun is on the boat) stayed on and was way louder then everything else. Even when i died it stayed on. really frustrating.
The top-down zombie mode is pure awesome.
.jpg "GRAFFITI WALLPAPER FOR IPHONE")
balamw
Oct 3, 02:41 PM
I guess it depends how much of FairPlay they end up replicating. If they replicate the server too, then it'll probably be simple to tell iTunes to look at the third-party server (just capture the data going to Apple's IP address and send it off to DoubleTwist).
If they do that it probably wouldn't work with iTMS purchased tracks. This leads to the same kind of issue as Real faed, sure you can use the Real Store, but not at the same time as ITMS. ick.
(FWIW. They could probable accomplish a simple redirection just by adding an entry to the local hosts table, since Apple most likely addresses their servers by name not IP.)
We'll see if anything comes out of this, good or bad.
B
If they do that it probably wouldn't work with iTMS purchased tracks. This leads to the same kind of issue as Real faed, sure you can use the Real Store, but not at the same time as ITMS. ick.
(FWIW. They could probable accomplish a simple redirection just by adding an entry to the local hosts table, since Apple most likely addresses their servers by name not IP.)
We'll see if anything comes out of this, good or bad.
B
Eidorian
Nov 24, 08:02 AM
AirPort Express Base Station
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00$8 cheaper this year.
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00$8 cheaper this year.
crazydreaming
Aug 7, 05:48 PM
The new educational pricing of the 23" makes it $899 now. That makes it much closer to the dell 24" price. Somewhere in the future (most likely far :p ) I want to buy a big display to go with my powerbook and use with my photography. I thought that display would be the 24" dell because the cinema was way more $$. However now, it's a much closer competition...
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Dagless
Nov 16, 12:43 PM
Why would they go with AMD when there is the Core2Duo? AMD needs something big to compete. AMD? I can't see it.
iliketomac
Jan 15, 01:29 PM
the apple remote is an optional extra! like the superdrive, theres an optional extra ethernet USB adapter. (for the MBA single USB port!)
just wait for the apple USB hub announcement to come in the summer! :D
Dang, they should have included that in the box!
just wait for the apple USB hub announcement to come in the summer! :D
Dang, they should have included that in the box!
ncfuser
Jan 15, 05:42 PM
I agree with the people that are not happy.
Almost feels like Steve and Co. didn't get some of the things they wanted to done in time.
Such has 3G for the iPhone, TouchScreen, Blu-Ray, to name a few.
Out of the "4" topics, only two are worthwhile.
1. Wireless HDD -- Which I like. I am looking for a external HDD for my HD Camcorder video.
2. Thin laptop -- I really don't care for. A laptop without a CD/DVD drive is kinda silly. Does anyone really need something that tiny for that much $$$
The other two are not worth a Macworld Keynote and they feel like fillers to me.
So I would have to say s sub par day that didn't live up to the hipe.
:apple:
Almost feels like Steve and Co. didn't get some of the things they wanted to done in time.
Such has 3G for the iPhone, TouchScreen, Blu-Ray, to name a few.
Out of the "4" topics, only two are worthwhile.
1. Wireless HDD -- Which I like. I am looking for a external HDD for my HD Camcorder video.
2. Thin laptop -- I really don't care for. A laptop without a CD/DVD drive is kinda silly. Does anyone really need something that tiny for that much $$$
The other two are not worth a Macworld Keynote and they feel like fillers to me.
So I would have to say s sub par day that didn't live up to the hipe.
:apple:
citizenzen
May 5, 06:29 PM
Do you really want a "gun war"? Really?
Dude. I haven't once suggested banning guns.
These days I'd be satisfied with a hint of awareness.
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
Since there has been no talk of a "blanket ban" you have little to fear.
Part of the reason the debate is "broken" is we seem to have a difficult time hearing what is being said.
Dude. I haven't once suggested banning guns.
These days I'd be satisfied with a hint of awareness.
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
Since there has been no talk of a "blanket ban" you have little to fear.
Part of the reason the debate is "broken" is we seem to have a difficult time hearing what is being said.
No comments:
Post a Comment