Arcady
Jan 5, 06:34 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the idea of a spoiler-free experience sort of run completely opposite to the purpose of this site? You sit around all year reading rumors and then don't want to be spoiled three hours before they post the keynote? Huh?
aristobrat
Oct 6, 12:24 PM
So no, the upgrade to 4G will not cause spotty coverage.
True, but it's not like they're going to flip a switch, and suddenly all of the "red" on the Verizon coverage map (3G) is going to light up "purple" (or whatever color they use for 4G).
Verizon is going to be in the same boat AT&T is -- having to go out and touch each one of those towers... installing new equipment, upgrading backhaul circuits, etc.
Any new "G" coverage is going to start out spotty, and then roll out/fill in. If it's like prior rollouts, major population centers first, rural areas later.
True, but it's not like they're going to flip a switch, and suddenly all of the "red" on the Verizon coverage map (3G) is going to light up "purple" (or whatever color they use for 4G).
Verizon is going to be in the same boat AT&T is -- having to go out and touch each one of those towers... installing new equipment, upgrading backhaul circuits, etc.
Any new "G" coverage is going to start out spotty, and then roll out/fill in. If it's like prior rollouts, major population centers first, rural areas later.
iZac
Apr 29, 03:27 PM
Who reads those things anyway...
sure this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdjUEVEJEhw) has been posted a million times but ...
(right at the end)
sure this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdjUEVEJEhw) has been posted a million times but ...
(right at the end)
texasmafia
Nov 24, 06:57 PM
I'm wondering the same thing.
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 08:24 PM
"How do you start a gay computer?"
Well, with my iMac, the button in back, left.
Well, with my iMac, the button in back, left.
thisisahughes
Mar 29, 01:03 AM
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
agreed. I sometimes wish there were more apps. in the Mac App Store. I think it's great and would love to use it more.
agreed. I sometimes wish there were more apps. in the Mac App Store. I think it's great and would love to use it more.
more...
BornAgainMac
Oct 3, 01:38 PM
I want Bill Gates to have a keynote that has a timeline of all the Pocket PC Phones releases they had in the last 5 years. Then Bill Gates will say "So you know what we have been doing for the last 5 years. Lets see what some of our competitors have been doing with phones in that time."
Apple, please come out with the damn phone!
Steve Jobs retiring
Steve Jobs says "iRetire" and walks off. I just don't see him retiring anytime soon.
Apple, please come out with the damn phone!
Steve Jobs retiring
Steve Jobs says "iRetire" and walks off. I just don't see him retiring anytime soon.
Knowimagination
Mar 17, 12:57 AM
Nah... they'll probably flat out fire the kid.
But it's cool, because the important thing is that the OP got a great deal on his iPad! :rolleyes:
Beware OP, because Karma's a b!tch.
This!
You dont get second chances when your register is missing 300
But it's cool, because the important thing is that the OP got a great deal on his iPad! :rolleyes:
Beware OP, because Karma's a b!tch.
This!
You dont get second chances when your register is missing 300
more...
Arcady
Oct 6, 10:44 PM
I don't understand people who point a video camera at their TV and record it, then upload that video to YouTube. If they can figure out how to connect the camera to the computer, why can't they figure out how to connect the TV?
flopticalcube
Apr 11, 12:35 PM
Yes. That doesn't make it okay. I'd expect the first intel Macs to still be able to run the latest OS. What is the betting that computers from 2006 will be able to run Windows 8? High chance I'd say.
only if W8 had a 32bit flavor. Otherwise, no. Apple prefers one flavor. At any rate, Apples motivation is to sell hardware so the push to update is always there. MS only cares about software.
only if W8 had a 32bit flavor. Otherwise, no. Apple prefers one flavor. At any rate, Apples motivation is to sell hardware so the push to update is always there. MS only cares about software.
more...
jjrtiger
May 2, 09:39 AM
Not that I really care about the tracking services...but I wonder if Apple will skip the 3G again with this update...
maclaptop
May 3, 11:38 PM
If I could only find a personal use beyond web browsing.
Since I have a variety of Mac laptops, which are my favs, I've reserved my iPads for web browsing only. Now after many months, keeping them simple and basic provides a certain sense of satisfaction.
They're the only devices I don't even sync or backup. In fact, that's the one thing that feels strange. Especially due to the fact I employ multiple backup strategies for all my other computers and phones.
That said, keeping them box stock for browsing only, is very freeing.
Since I have a variety of Mac laptops, which are my favs, I've reserved my iPads for web browsing only. Now after many months, keeping them simple and basic provides a certain sense of satisfaction.
They're the only devices I don't even sync or backup. In fact, that's the one thing that feels strange. Especially due to the fact I employ multiple backup strategies for all my other computers and phones.
That said, keeping them box stock for browsing only, is very freeing.
more...
Chef Medeski
Oct 19, 07:50 PM
If Vista is a dog, and gets a lot of bad media attention out of the gate (this will be exacerbated if Apple can release a Leopard that makes Vista pale in comparison), a lot of these upgraders-in-waiting are going to be pushed over the edge and will buy mac-minis or new mac laptops, knowing that they can fall back to Vista if OS X doesn't work out for them.
If Vista is brilliant, and Leopard turns out to be just a minor upgrade of Tiger, most of these upgraders-in-wating will just buy another Dell like they always have.
The most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle... Vista will get mixed reviews, but will be viewed a a very significant improvement over XP, and Leopard will be a significant improvement over Tiger, but will only have a few features that Vista lacks, and some of the upgraders-in-waiting will take the plunge, but the more conservative will stick with the devil-they-know. As a result, the number of OS X installs will continue to grow, but it won't break the crucial 10% market share that makes it a 'mainstream' OS.
Cheers
First Scenario: Never. Tiger added very little. Dashboard is nice but the real upgrade was merely Spotlight. Seriously... a little stability here.... fancy features there... nothing special.
From the Leopard Preview its obvious they have nothing big up their sleeves that they've shown yet. Plus if this was likely they would have multiple huge things.. which guess what.... they don't. Cause if they had tons of great stuff... they would have at least showed us once. Time Machine barely counts as something good since itll probably be a resource hog and Virtual Desktops is nice... but still doesn't seem as nicely implemented as in Linux.
Option 2: Seems more and more likely as Spring draws nearer. THE BRAND NEW ICAL.... just has a diferent brush of aluminum. And Vista while not changing anything of how XP works, it does change how it looks for the much better. Adds many Applesque touches such as attention to detail, and really does stop a lot of Spyware. I don't see it being amazing.... but it will be good. Based on what they have shown so far... if Vista isn't a resource hog, buggy, and a security risk. It'll beat Leopard. SOrry, guys but really at this point. I could even swallow one of the three for Vista to still win. Leopard is showing a weak showing currently, Jobs better have a A or two or actually 4 up his sleeves cause he needs them.
Most likely option:
Same as your most likely option except cut down Leopard down a notch. And see Apple began to stop growth around 7.5% as they are unable to justify the price gap, as new technologies start surfacing earlier in other machines... I haven't seen any hybrid technology or Blue-ray in Apple. Other companies are showing them off. Leopard better be good very good, and Apple better have some innocation in computers up their sleeves like new cases for the first time in what 8 yrs? If they want to beat 10% of the US market. We'll get the bronze by next quarter (beat Gateway) Yet. beating gateway isn't saying much. They create such bad crap, thats just shameful.
A Toast to the New Finacial Year and many new and exciting (for once) Apple Products.... I mean stuff girls can get excited... not just Intel CPUs. :p
If Vista is brilliant, and Leopard turns out to be just a minor upgrade of Tiger, most of these upgraders-in-wating will just buy another Dell like they always have.
The most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle... Vista will get mixed reviews, but will be viewed a a very significant improvement over XP, and Leopard will be a significant improvement over Tiger, but will only have a few features that Vista lacks, and some of the upgraders-in-waiting will take the plunge, but the more conservative will stick with the devil-they-know. As a result, the number of OS X installs will continue to grow, but it won't break the crucial 10% market share that makes it a 'mainstream' OS.
Cheers
First Scenario: Never. Tiger added very little. Dashboard is nice but the real upgrade was merely Spotlight. Seriously... a little stability here.... fancy features there... nothing special.
From the Leopard Preview its obvious they have nothing big up their sleeves that they've shown yet. Plus if this was likely they would have multiple huge things.. which guess what.... they don't. Cause if they had tons of great stuff... they would have at least showed us once. Time Machine barely counts as something good since itll probably be a resource hog and Virtual Desktops is nice... but still doesn't seem as nicely implemented as in Linux.
Option 2: Seems more and more likely as Spring draws nearer. THE BRAND NEW ICAL.... just has a diferent brush of aluminum. And Vista while not changing anything of how XP works, it does change how it looks for the much better. Adds many Applesque touches such as attention to detail, and really does stop a lot of Spyware. I don't see it being amazing.... but it will be good. Based on what they have shown so far... if Vista isn't a resource hog, buggy, and a security risk. It'll beat Leopard. SOrry, guys but really at this point. I could even swallow one of the three for Vista to still win. Leopard is showing a weak showing currently, Jobs better have a A or two or actually 4 up his sleeves cause he needs them.
Most likely option:
Same as your most likely option except cut down Leopard down a notch. And see Apple began to stop growth around 7.5% as they are unable to justify the price gap, as new technologies start surfacing earlier in other machines... I haven't seen any hybrid technology or Blue-ray in Apple. Other companies are showing them off. Leopard better be good very good, and Apple better have some innocation in computers up their sleeves like new cases for the first time in what 8 yrs? If they want to beat 10% of the US market. We'll get the bronze by next quarter (beat Gateway) Yet. beating gateway isn't saying much. They create such bad crap, thats just shameful.
A Toast to the New Finacial Year and many new and exciting (for once) Apple Products.... I mean stuff girls can get excited... not just Intel CPUs. :p
iVoid
Sep 28, 04:29 PM
Wow, my dream home is bigger than that. :) :)
Of course, I have no money to build my dream home. So maybe Steve can give me some since he's not spending a lot of this home. :)
I wonder if he will have a glass spiral staircase?
Only looks like a single story to me.
Of course, I have no money to build my dream home. So maybe Steve can give me some since he's not spending a lot of this home. :)
I wonder if he will have a glass spiral staircase?
Only looks like a single story to me.
more...
DavisCollins
Jan 8, 12:09 AM
BTW, I had to laugh when they demoed FMV used as a wallpaper in Vista, and the crowd ooohed and awwed and clapped. :)
yeah i watched it to. everything they "revealed" i was like yep. tiger has that. but when they started to talk about reverting to previous versions of files with "ShadowCopy" the wise-ass speaker said "Its even better than time travel" and a couple of people who got the joke giggled. what an ass.
and yeah i am deffinatly gonna put that link to use, because ill be at school. and when i get home im not gonna want to go straight to apple like i do everyday. (ill probly get one one of my teachers computers and look anyway)
yeah i watched it to. everything they "revealed" i was like yep. tiger has that. but when they started to talk about reverting to previous versions of files with "ShadowCopy" the wise-ass speaker said "Its even better than time travel" and a couple of people who got the joke giggled. what an ass.
and yeah i am deffinatly gonna put that link to use, because ill be at school. and when i get home im not gonna want to go straight to apple like i do everyday. (ill probly get one one of my teachers computers and look anyway)
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
more...
Cadena Alimenticia
cadena alimenticia - ¿cómo es
cadena alimenticia.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
more...
Flowbee
Jan 12, 03:05 PM
not me. the video was sooo hilarious. CES = the most prominent electronics show in the world with the MOST HIGH TECH tech you can find. and they allow for a 14.99 POS hack to ruin almost every booth.
And I could have ruined every booth with a $1.99 slingshot and a pocket full of small stones.
You can't demonstrate tech products in an open environment while at the same time disabling their features and ensuring that nobody will tamper with them. How do you let people try out your new TV if you've had to disable the IR?
If pranks like these become more common, companies and trade shows will start to put severe restrictions on who's allowed to attend their events. And that's a bad thing. It's pretty safe to say that Gizmodo, Engadget, and all the other tech blogs would continue to cover CES product announcements whether they're invited to the event or not, so the big manufacturers don't have much to lose by the blogs not being there.
And I could have ruined every booth with a $1.99 slingshot and a pocket full of small stones.
You can't demonstrate tech products in an open environment while at the same time disabling their features and ensuring that nobody will tamper with them. How do you let people try out your new TV if you've had to disable the IR?
If pranks like these become more common, companies and trade shows will start to put severe restrictions on who's allowed to attend their events. And that's a bad thing. It's pretty safe to say that Gizmodo, Engadget, and all the other tech blogs would continue to cover CES product announcements whether they're invited to the event or not, so the big manufacturers don't have much to lose by the blogs not being there.
ilpap
Apr 29, 03:39 PM
been using Lion since DP1 as my main OS without problems
me too
me too
takao
Nov 15, 07:04 PM
my personal gripes/opinions:
single player:
* so far graphically it's more on the miss side comapred to bad company 2
* game design: pop up enemies and respawns in plain sight: get a grip this is 2010 calling
*frustrating check points where you respawn directly with an enemy 1 step behind you
*i like the story etc. especially some of non fighting scenes .. of which there are simply too few so far... for my taste it's simply too much nonstop shooting and too little actually tense moments
*on the negative side i can only take so many "my character lies on the ground and get's kicked/punched in the face scenes"
*also i didn't get big point being made about <20thcenturyvilliancountry> secretly having developed <plotdeviceWMD> in <lastyearofwarXYZ> when in reality they had developed other <sametypeofWMDs> even before they started the war ? also why make up artificial <WMDs> when real ones could have been easily used ?
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
single player:
* so far graphically it's more on the miss side comapred to bad company 2
* game design: pop up enemies and respawns in plain sight: get a grip this is 2010 calling
*frustrating check points where you respawn directly with an enemy 1 step behind you
*i like the story etc. especially some of non fighting scenes .. of which there are simply too few so far... for my taste it's simply too much nonstop shooting and too little actually tense moments
*on the negative side i can only take so many "my character lies on the ground and get's kicked/punched in the face scenes"
*also i didn't get big point being made about <20thcenturyvilliancountry> secretly having developed <plotdeviceWMD> in <lastyearofwarXYZ> when in reality they had developed other <sametypeofWMDs> even before they started the war ? also why make up artificial <WMDs> when real ones could have been easily used ?
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
lmalave
Oct 19, 10:46 AM
Woohoo!! This is the first time I can remember that Apple has had over 5% market share! :D
I think they got briefly back up to 8% or so after the initial launch of the iMac. Nice to see them climbing back up to that range. I hope they break 10% within a couple of years, because I think that is right about at the critical mass where a lot more software developers will consider developing an OS X version of their product.
I think they got briefly back up to 8% or so after the initial launch of the iMac. Nice to see them climbing back up to that range. I hope they break 10% within a couple of years, because I think that is right about at the critical mass where a lot more software developers will consider developing an OS X version of their product.
marktwain
Nov 23, 06:52 PM
So wait... a $101 discount on the 17" iMac but only a $41 discount on the 24" model? That doesn't make sense. Usually the more expensive the item, the larger the discount.
The dicount is around $100...the highest end model is $2059...the 24" iMac with wireless keyboard and mouse...it's a configuration they stock in the stores.
The dicount is around $100...the highest end model is $2059...the 24" iMac with wireless keyboard and mouse...it's a configuration they stock in the stores.
RMo
Apr 5, 08:43 PM
they should allow users to like or dislike iAds to help cater the iAds that are sent to the user :cool:
Read the description: "...lets you tag your favorites to a Loved section that�s all your own."
You can't "dislike" them and it doesn't say what they're doing with the "loved" section other than saving it for your personal viewing pleasure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually catered to your preferences using something like this.
Read the description: "...lets you tag your favorites to a Loved section that�s all your own."
You can't "dislike" them and it doesn't say what they're doing with the "loved" section other than saving it for your personal viewing pleasure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually catered to your preferences using something like this.
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
ClimbingTheLog
Oct 30, 09:59 AM
in a sense he's right. with a bsd license, you can really do whatever you want
True - again, though, this is purely a user's perspective. With the BSD license, the developer loses all rights to say what happens to his code. The GPL gives the developer the right to stipulate a redistribution term. So the "most freedom" award can't be given in a vacuum.
Different tools for different jobs; both good; pick the right one, etc.
True - again, though, this is purely a user's perspective. With the BSD license, the developer loses all rights to say what happens to his code. The GPL gives the developer the right to stipulate a redistribution term. So the "most freedom" award can't be given in a vacuum.
Different tools for different jobs; both good; pick the right one, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment