jhu
Oct 29, 08:37 PM
So then you only consider the BSD license to be free?
in a sense he's right. with a bsd license, you can really do whatever you want. you can modify the code to your hearts content and release or not release the code. perhaps there's an advertising clause, depending on the bsd license. and that's about it. however, with gpl, if you release the binary, you must release the code upon request.
in a sense he's right. with a bsd license, you can really do whatever you want. you can modify the code to your hearts content and release or not release the code. perhaps there's an advertising clause, depending on the bsd license. and that's about it. however, with gpl, if you release the binary, you must release the code upon request.
jimbo110
Sep 12, 08:36 AM
It's showtime in the danish store as well. It looks like a international update. That's positive sign.
secondhandloser
Mar 11, 10:01 AM
The click wheel interface was, in fact, a key element in the astounding (and that's putting it mildly) success of the iPod.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
I thought the iPod succeeded due to integration with an online music source, as well as finally being a useable HD based mp3 player.
I wasn't aware computing had changed. Please detail this.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
I thought the iPod succeeded due to integration with an online music source, as well as finally being a useable HD based mp3 player.
I wasn't aware computing had changed. Please detail this.
balamw
Oct 5, 08:23 AM
Your average ipod owner could not possibly give a flying %^@$ about how Fairplay's DRM compares to other mp3 players' DRM. Talking about "DRM transparent" like its something that Joe Consumer has any clue about is delusional at best.
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
dongmin
Oct 19, 03:08 PM
Do you believe that the perpetual delay of Microsoft's Vista OS is allowing Apple to temporarily grab up some of the markey share? I'm not saying that people who would otherwise purchase a Wintel machine are switching to Mac because Vista is not out, but rather that some percentage are waiting to buy their new Core2Duo machine (or other upgrade to their current box) until they can get an full release version of Vista preinstalled on it.
Just a conjecture, but I thought it was worth considering. I suppose we'll find out in the first two quarters of 2007 when Microsoft decides that they're ready to release that bad boy on the world . . .
[JDOG, your post came in while I was still typing mine . . . sorry for the repeat]We're talking about hardware here, not OS. So Vista should have very little effect on Apple's PC marketshare, unless of course Vista's release encourages people to buy new PCs from Dell, HP, etc.
Just a conjecture, but I thought it was worth considering. I suppose we'll find out in the first two quarters of 2007 when Microsoft decides that they're ready to release that bad boy on the world . . .
[JDOG, your post came in while I was still typing mine . . . sorry for the repeat]We're talking about hardware here, not OS. So Vista should have very little effect on Apple's PC marketshare, unless of course Vista's release encourages people to buy new PCs from Dell, HP, etc.
SMM
Oct 19, 08:35 PM
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
Nice analysis. Unfortunately I disagree with most of it, as do most of the analysts who write about such things. I do like the fact that you present an intelligent reason for your personal preferences (which these are).
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
Nice analysis. Unfortunately I disagree with most of it, as do most of the analysts who write about such things. I do like the fact that you present an intelligent reason for your personal preferences (which these are).
WestonHarvey1
Apr 29, 02:05 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
Uh huh. Then just jailbreak this hypothetical Mac, or buy the developer Mac that's going to be needed to make software for the iOS Mac.
Uh huh. Then just jailbreak this hypothetical Mac, or buy the developer Mac that's going to be needed to make software for the iOS Mac.
minnesotamacman
Sep 12, 07:47 AM
False Alarm... I think my update was to 6.0.5, which is strange given I update all the time on this MBP... Sorry for the false alarm guys. Back to speculating!
wtmcgee
Sep 25, 11:05 AM
Seems like a solid update to Aperture. I'm curious to see if there is a flickrexport-type feature included in this plug-in api mentioned. That's the one thing I miss from when I previously used iPhoto.
lbro
Apr 22, 06:28 PM
I think everybody should be able to see how many positives and negatives specific posters have given. e.g. I gave a few +1s today and no -1s so somewhere on my profile or under my username it should say 3 +1s given, 0 -1s given or something like that.
FreeState
Apr 15, 05:53 PM
What will be next? Here are some fine suggestions:
- Gay Arts
- Gay Phys.Ed.
- Gay Comp.Sci.
LOL - well currently in CA it is common place to not learn anything about gay history (Stonewall etc), yet alone mention that someone that does get mentioned (which is very few) was gay. Including LGBT history is not only the right thing to so, one does not learn history when you leave out things, but it has been shown to decrease harassment and bullying of LGBT students. Can you imagine going to a public school and having everything related to your culture/group excluded from the curriculum? What does that teach the students about LGBT people?
- Gay Arts
- Gay Phys.Ed.
- Gay Comp.Sci.
LOL - well currently in CA it is common place to not learn anything about gay history (Stonewall etc), yet alone mention that someone that does get mentioned (which is very few) was gay. Including LGBT history is not only the right thing to so, one does not learn history when you leave out things, but it has been shown to decrease harassment and bullying of LGBT students. Can you imagine going to a public school and having everything related to your culture/group excluded from the curriculum? What does that teach the students about LGBT people?
Koodauw
Sep 12, 01:01 AM
That phone looks amazing. Wish I could have one.
benbow
Nov 24, 03:08 AM
17" iMac 2.0Ghz ordered 20 minutes ago.
A check off box at check-out enrolls me in Apple recycling program.
The $101 iMac discount becomes $93 in California because of a state imposed extra tax for new computer monitor purchases. $ goes to local dumps to help pay for the processing of dumped computer gear.
monitor 4-14.9" $6 (MacBook)
monitor 15-34.9" $8 (everything else)
monitor >35" $10 (future iMacs?)
A check off box at check-out enrolls me in Apple recycling program.
The $101 iMac discount becomes $93 in California because of a state imposed extra tax for new computer monitor purchases. $ goes to local dumps to help pay for the processing of dumped computer gear.
monitor 4-14.9" $6 (MacBook)
monitor 15-34.9" $8 (everything else)
monitor >35" $10 (future iMacs?)
vincenz
Apr 15, 05:12 PM
wow the iOS/Apple closed ecosystem must really be the WORSE THANG EVAR if google is trying to trying to do it.
Everyone's just a hypocrite..
Everyone's just a hypocrite..
Gloor
Jan 9, 06:06 PM
i expect a new iphone(yes i do).the current iphone i think sucks i rather buy a nokia/sony ericson.
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
I'm sorry to say it like that but can't you use spell check? I am foreigner too and I do make mistakes but what you wrote above is really ugly. I understood everything you said but man you should do something with your grammar check. Please
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
I'm sorry to say it like that but can't you use spell check? I am foreigner too and I do make mistakes but what you wrote above is really ugly. I understood everything you said but man you should do something with your grammar check. Please
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.
brsboarder
Nov 24, 06:56 PM
apple store US site is down, are they just rolling back the prices?
FoxyKaye
Oct 17, 08:59 AM
Now I'm definitely waiting this battle out, no matter how interesting it becomes.
pmullins11
Apr 13, 08:52 PM
Roku XDS
281240
Amazon Kindle Case (Brown)
281241
281240
Amazon Kindle Case (Brown)
281241
rtdgoldfish
Apr 3, 09:05 PM
A friend of mine works with the Xbox support team. I'll ask him if there's anything (legal) that they can do. You have my admiration for your good detective work!
That would be great. I'm sure there must be SOMETHING they can do.
That would be great. I'm sure there must be SOMETHING they can do.
NebulaClash
May 3, 10:36 PM
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
Agreed, and it is the big long-term mistake Android marketers are making. When you appeal to young males in your ads, while repelling everyone else, you limit your product's long-term appeal. Gadget blogs don't see the problem because they are mostly young males.
Apple ads appeal to everyone the way traditional Coke or McDonalds ads did and often still do.
Agreed, and it is the big long-term mistake Android marketers are making. When you appeal to young males in your ads, while repelling everyone else, you limit your product's long-term appeal. Gadget blogs don't see the problem because they are mostly young males.
Apple ads appeal to everyone the way traditional Coke or McDonalds ads did and often still do.
spicyapple
Sep 12, 07:22 AM
What y'all doing up so early? :)
Can't wait, can't wait!!
Can't wait, can't wait!!
xappeal
Sep 12, 06:18 AM
I don't think we'll see imedia or any weird name for the new movie store, but rather an expanded version of quicktime will be launched.
Think about it:
Already included with itunes
Established brand name
Already made for mac and pc
Plus the app already is a pretty good player, just needs non-pro fullscreen.
Think about it:
Already included with itunes
Established brand name
Already made for mac and pc
Plus the app already is a pretty good player, just needs non-pro fullscreen.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment