zioxide
Jan 10, 05:04 PM
lol, shutting off dish network's wall of monitors was funny, but ****ing with the presentations was immature and stupid.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:07 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Despite the source of the image being not 100% trusted, this seems to be most accurate sounding rumour. Although I do not think that it will be called iPhone 4S as this will mess with the versioning numbers because the one after the 4S/5 would be 6.
No it will go from 4S to 5 lol
Despite the source of the image being not 100% trusted, this seems to be most accurate sounding rumour. Although I do not think that it will be called iPhone 4S as this will mess with the versioning numbers because the one after the 4S/5 would be 6.
No it will go from 4S to 5 lol
Christopher387A
Apr 25, 02:09 PM
IMHO, it looks gorgeous. I'd love to have one...
I agree. Even though I would love a 4" screen, this one looks perfect for the current size of the iP4.
I agree. Even though I would love a 4" screen, this one looks perfect for the current size of the iP4.
sarper
Apr 26, 12:37 AM
As a developer, this will be pain in the ass!
Retina Displays have exactly the double number of pixels with the same resolution, having a second resolution is a giant step to gain one of the crappiest features of Android. I really doubt Apple would do that.
What if this isn't a bigger screen but a smaller device with the same screen on it? Hmm..
Retina Displays have exactly the double number of pixels with the same resolution, having a second resolution is a giant step to gain one of the crappiest features of Android. I really doubt Apple would do that.
What if this isn't a bigger screen but a smaller device with the same screen on it? Hmm..
lordonuthin
Jul 22, 04:27 AM
My router is having some trouble, seems to quit working whenever I'm at work :mad: I bought a new one on ebay, hope it gets here SOON!
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.
r.j.s
Jan 13, 04:17 PM
What I'm wondering is.. if Gizmodo never posted that video, would we have heard about it anyway? As in, would there be news stories saying "Pranksters hit CES hard by turning off displays"
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
Chances are, the presenters all thought they had come kind of HW failure/ power failure up until the point Gizmodo posted their footage.
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
Chances are, the presenters all thought they had come kind of HW failure/ power failure up until the point Gizmodo posted their footage.
l3lack J4ck
Nov 24, 01:24 PM
could you link me on how to get the government discount? my dad works for the post office and that is federal government...could somoene tell me how to get this discount? thanks
belovedmonster
Jan 5, 06:15 PM
If it was live you wouldnt get all the split screen editing etc. It would be quite a linear and boring presentation.
Editing the feed can give emphasis to certain aspects and also cut out anything that goes wrong.
Havent you ever seen live TV? Doing Picture in Picture effects (split screen) is nothing that cant be done with a simple press of a button at the mixing desk and doesn't represent any problem for live broadcasts what so ever. In fact, actually editing those effects in afterwards would require way more work than just doing it live on the fly. No one in their right mind would do it after the event if they didn't have to.
Editing the feed can give emphasis to certain aspects and also cut out anything that goes wrong.
Havent you ever seen live TV? Doing Picture in Picture effects (split screen) is nothing that cant be done with a simple press of a button at the mixing desk and doesn't represent any problem for live broadcasts what so ever. In fact, actually editing those effects in afterwards would require way more work than just doing it live on the fly. No one in their right mind would do it after the event if they didn't have to.
mauka
Nov 24, 12:46 PM
At the Honolulu Apple Store I was able to buy a black MacBook, using govt employee discount less black friday discount, total price $1309.00. At first they were saying no double discounts, but after a bit of a stand down myself and another unrelated buyer got the deal. :)
MKelleher
Apr 29, 07:07 PM
Sheesh, what a BORING update. Who cares about the shade of the buttons in the System Preferences? They're still using this same boring GREY that they've been using since Panther (minus the brushed steel). How boring is grey? I hate to say it, but Windows 7 with their translucent plastic is TEN TIMES more attractive than Mac OSX.
Apple used to make visually interesting computers. Now it's all this boring industrial design.
What's next? Going back to BEIGE?
Apple used to make visually interesting computers. Now it's all this boring industrial design.
What's next? Going back to BEIGE?
GeoffRuth
Oct 19, 11:29 AM
Why on earth would anyone mark this as negative, unless they were a troll?
KnightWRX
May 3, 07:41 PM
I pay for 6 GB of data (30$/month) and thank god my carrier recognizes that this 6 GB of data is mine to do with as I please.
zephxiii
Dec 19, 08:31 PM
CDMA is not even close to being the dominate tech in cellular in China.
Chundles
Sep 12, 07:46 AM
Any idea if macrumors is covering todays event live just like the wwdc?
Yep, they sure are.
Yep, they sure are.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 02:39 PM
Yes, you'll get a great idea by the votes. :D
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
Hastings101
Apr 5, 03:45 PM
Gee, this sounds exciting
sotorious
May 2, 09:44 AM
How is this going to work for Verizon users im on 4.3.7 if im not mistaken...
edit scratch that its 4.2.7 and i just went into settings and it says carrier settings update if i click not now or update now will it do it Over the Air?
edit scratch that its 4.2.7 and i just went into settings and it says carrier settings update if i click not now or update now will it do it Over the Air?
LagunaSol
Apr 16, 01:43 AM
Next up, Google gives away songs for free. Inserts targeted ads every 30 seconds of music. Fandroids flood the Web to tell us all how awesome Android and "free" Google music are and what a greedy jerk Steve Jobs is for selling songs.
You know it's coming.
You know it's coming.
varcos
Jan 9, 03:25 PM
OK, i dont know if this is a problem, but the URL of the keynote itself happens to contain a spoiler. Could be an issue.
Actually someone at Apple took the spoiler off the keynote URL page:
So, it's not here anymore:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf07/
But it is everywhere else on the site.
Very nice of them.
Actually someone at Apple took the spoiler off the keynote URL page:
So, it's not here anymore:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf07/
But it is everywhere else on the site.
Very nice of them.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 09:03 AM
How you gonna burn it to DVD if it's Hi-Def?
Perhaps they'll include HD-DVD burners in the new MBP's. :) Hey, I can dream can't I? :D
I can't? Darn.
Perhaps they'll include HD-DVD burners in the new MBP's. :) Hey, I can dream can't I? :D
I can't? Darn.
CaoCao
Apr 18, 08:30 AM
Any basic history textbook will include basic information about a person. Left handedness often is mentioned, so is deafness, blindness and other physical differences. Homosexuality isn't in the same league, now is it?
Why do so many people have a difficult time acknowledging the unique contributions of gay people?
Have you heard of Wounded Knee? This country has a horrible problem in dealing with minorities an those on the right seem most interested in suppressing anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow and erroneous interpretation of American demographics.
It's very, very sad.
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
Why do so many people have a difficult time acknowledging the unique contributions of gay people?
Have you heard of Wounded Knee? This country has a horrible problem in dealing with minorities an those on the right seem most interested in suppressing anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow and erroneous interpretation of American demographics.
It's very, very sad.
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
ZipZap
May 4, 04:55 AM
???
Get your facts straight
This is the carriers messing people over, not Google.
Google added wireless hotspot feature to all Android 2.2 (Froyo) devices last year (and Apple included a similar feature in to the iPhone 4 with IOS 4 AFAIK).
Actually, To be precise...this is the carrier enforcing the contract you made with them. You did sign a contract, right?
Get your facts straight
This is the carriers messing people over, not Google.
Google added wireless hotspot feature to all Android 2.2 (Froyo) devices last year (and Apple included a similar feature in to the iPhone 4 with IOS 4 AFAIK).
Actually, To be precise...this is the carrier enforcing the contract you made with them. You did sign a contract, right?
SAD*FACED*CLOWN
Apr 16, 10:00 AM
these pictures are from a story I read on engadget about some guy that made an aluminum case for his iPhone...and strangley I saw it around March 23, my birthday....which is why I remember it
No comments:
Post a Comment