shawnce
Oct 30, 10:21 AM
The end-fact that Apple's source does not appear to be publicly accessible does not appear to be in dispute, but rather questions have arisen as to whether it was ever publicly accessible (publicly accessible as defined by not requiring registration with Apple. The source is still free).
Any item released under the APSL (Apple Public Source License) requires and has required since the dawn of the APSL users to register an account with Apple (free account). This is done so Apple can track that you have read the APSL before you gain access to the source. It has always been this way... in fact this registration requirement was talked about on and off for years on the Darwin lists (for example (http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-development/2001/Mar/msg00329.html)) and was one of the reasons that OpenDarwin was started (some folks just couldn't bring themselves to register).
A few years ago Apple integrated the open source account system with their Apple ID system so that if you have an Apple ID you didn't have to create a separate account you could just use that. See last paragraph of this email (http://lists.apple.com/archives/Publicsource-announce/2003/Aug/msg00000.html).
All Apple Developer Accounts (ADC) can be used as an Apple ID, as can .Mac accounts, Apple support forums accounts, Apple store accounts, etc.
Finally the 10.4.8 source never got linked on the top level darwin source page, only 10.4.7 got listed most recently (I have been looking for the last 3 weeks). The reason is that Apple is transitioning over to macosforge.org (that is the site that lists links to Intel version of XNU and only that site) and they appeared to have hit some system resource issue that has slowed this transition. As I noted in my prior post you can access 10.4.8 sources using a direct link to the tarball.
As a side note I have worked on Darwin sources since it was first put online under the APSL and I worked on aspects of OpenDarwin when it first got going. So I am speaking from a long history of experience with Darwin.
Any item released under the APSL (Apple Public Source License) requires and has required since the dawn of the APSL users to register an account with Apple (free account). This is done so Apple can track that you have read the APSL before you gain access to the source. It has always been this way... in fact this registration requirement was talked about on and off for years on the Darwin lists (for example (http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-development/2001/Mar/msg00329.html)) and was one of the reasons that OpenDarwin was started (some folks just couldn't bring themselves to register).
A few years ago Apple integrated the open source account system with their Apple ID system so that if you have an Apple ID you didn't have to create a separate account you could just use that. See last paragraph of this email (http://lists.apple.com/archives/Publicsource-announce/2003/Aug/msg00000.html).
All Apple Developer Accounts (ADC) can be used as an Apple ID, as can .Mac accounts, Apple support forums accounts, Apple store accounts, etc.
Finally the 10.4.8 source never got linked on the top level darwin source page, only 10.4.7 got listed most recently (I have been looking for the last 3 weeks). The reason is that Apple is transitioning over to macosforge.org (that is the site that lists links to Intel version of XNU and only that site) and they appeared to have hit some system resource issue that has slowed this transition. As I noted in my prior post you can access 10.4.8 sources using a direct link to the tarball.
As a side note I have worked on Darwin sources since it was first put online under the APSL and I worked on aspects of OpenDarwin when it first got going. So I am speaking from a long history of experience with Darwin.
yellow
Apr 11, 01:47 PM
I purchased a stay at this Castle. I hope the wife likes it.
What are you doing with a camera shot of my servant's quarters? :confused:
What are you doing with a camera shot of my servant's quarters? :confused:
kdarling
Oct 22, 04:26 PM
So you looked around and deemed them fixed or drove around and tested them?
Tested.
In my neighborhood, which is surrounded by hills and lots of state parks, there were several well known holes for all carriers.
Certain valleys, certain sections of road. Every local person knew exactly where they were, because cell service just disappeared in those places. That map was bang on.
Then a couple of years ago, several new towers finally got approved and built, and the dead spots disappeared. (Alas, the skyline isn't as pretty as it used to be, however.)
I can still see those old dead spots marked on that map. The website says it's been up since 2001. Looks like people often enter data, but don't take the time to go back and remove it, assuming there's a way to do that.
Tested.
In my neighborhood, which is surrounded by hills and lots of state parks, there were several well known holes for all carriers.
Certain valleys, certain sections of road. Every local person knew exactly where they were, because cell service just disappeared in those places. That map was bang on.
Then a couple of years ago, several new towers finally got approved and built, and the dead spots disappeared. (Alas, the skyline isn't as pretty as it used to be, however.)
I can still see those old dead spots marked on that map. The website says it's been up since 2001. Looks like people often enter data, but don't take the time to go back and remove it, assuming there's a way to do that.
wrldwzrd89
Apr 7, 10:48 AM
Another rumor - Windows History Vault will make its debut in Windows 8, inspired by Apple's Time Machine feature: http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/05/microsoft-prepares-its-time-machine-for-windows-8
michaelflynn
Apr 5, 03:40 PM
Hahahahahaha what a joke
Rt&Dzine
May 4, 03:27 PM
The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
Because being a homosexual is just like owning a gun. They're both choices. :rolleyes:
Because being a homosexual is just like owning a gun. They're both choices. :rolleyes:
nim23
Apr 16, 09:51 AM
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-1fcq6stwput2wkx8w2c3wdw3sf.jpg
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-x24u8rjfyc781wmh9ms3us6y4e.jpg
That definitely looks fake!
Completely different materials used, extremely controversial shape and very un-apple like features...
Plus there is no substance to it, maybe just a cover for the current iPhone?
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-x24u8rjfyc781wmh9ms3us6y4e.jpg
That definitely looks fake!
Completely different materials used, extremely controversial shape and very un-apple like features...
Plus there is no substance to it, maybe just a cover for the current iPhone?
EiriasEmrys
Apr 25, 12:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I feel like apple could be attempting to spurn the rumors this time around by feeding a lot of different and false trails into the rumor mill. After the gizmodo incident and the press it got, they might be likely to try anything to keep their baby under wraps.
I feel like apple could be attempting to spurn the rumors this time around by feeding a lot of different and false trails into the rumor mill. After the gizmodo incident and the press it got, they might be likely to try anything to keep their baby under wraps.
intlplby
Sep 25, 11:36 AM
yeah i hope it's teh snappy too... i get beach balls all the time on my fully loaded MBP too.....
it's gonna be nice that it ties in with the other iLife apps.
it's gonna be nice that it ties in with the other iLife apps.
jamferma
Sep 12, 08:17 AM
At least your 3G iPod had enough battery to last through one song.
lasts about an hour:D
lasts about an hour:D
Fearless Leader
Jan 14, 04:14 PM
The first bit was funny for this teenage, but this was nothing for a "Journalist" to be doing.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:26 AM
Man, I always wait till after midnight to check for new music that gets released on Tuesdays. Now that Apple has gone and changed my life in some inconceivable way again, I'll have to wait till this afternoon to get my new album fix from them.
Yea, there was an album that just came out today that I was seriously contemplating purchasing. I even found it this morning before the store went down.
Yea, there was an album that just came out today that I was seriously contemplating purchasing. I even found it this morning before the store went down.
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.
kristen stewart 2011 hairstyle
Kristen Stewart Hair
a kristen stewart hair 0
Kristen Stewart#39;s new hair
stewart hair dye | kristen
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.
Calidude
Apr 16, 04:53 PM
Indeed.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
Yvan256
Oct 11, 08:52 AM
I knew it! I just bought an Archos 504
On behalf of all of us who want a true video iPod/PDA/etc, we thank you for your purchase. You've now pushed the true video iPod ahead of schedule. :D
On behalf of all of us who want a true video iPod/PDA/etc, we thank you for your purchase. You've now pushed the true video iPod ahead of schedule. :D
neiltc13
Apr 23, 07:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
RP:
All you have shown is a deep-seated fear of advertising. And it's been stated that Apple doesn't actually collect this data, so it isn't even being used for iAds.
How exactly, specifically, will this cell phone tower tracking info compromise your personal safety? What exactly is there to fear? There must be something more than targeted advertising, which is at best an annoyance you have to live with anyway.
This really isn't related to Windows 8, but...
iPhone tracking and storing users' locations isn't really a surprise, nor is it worrying. What is an eye opener is that when Google was asked about the same thing, they gave an immediate response and explained how their phones work. Why hasn't Apple done this?
RP:
All you have shown is a deep-seated fear of advertising. And it's been stated that Apple doesn't actually collect this data, so it isn't even being used for iAds.
How exactly, specifically, will this cell phone tower tracking info compromise your personal safety? What exactly is there to fear? There must be something more than targeted advertising, which is at best an annoyance you have to live with anyway.
This really isn't related to Windows 8, but...
iPhone tracking and storing users' locations isn't really a surprise, nor is it worrying. What is an eye opener is that when Google was asked about the same thing, they gave an immediate response and explained how their phones work. Why hasn't Apple done this?
bming1
Jan 13, 09:36 AM
I can name one big thing - visual voicemail. I think this is an amazing feature. Instead of waiting for the voicemail system to respond to your button inputs to skip messages so you can finally get to the one you want, you just touch the screen once. Please show me another cell phone that can do this.
As someone else has already pointed out, there are over 200 patents in the phone. While I'm certain that many are related to human factors elements and software, it's likely that there are some hardware patents involved. Only an Apple hardware engineer who was intimately involved in the design of the iPhone would be able to help you out here.
who are you kidding? what part of iphone is not previously existed in technology? yay it has a nice UI, like all other apple products, but the hardware?
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
As someone else has already pointed out, there are over 200 patents in the phone. While I'm certain that many are related to human factors elements and software, it's likely that there are some hardware patents involved. Only an Apple hardware engineer who was intimately involved in the design of the iPhone would be able to help you out here.
who are you kidding? what part of iphone is not previously existed in technology? yay it has a nice UI, like all other apple products, but the hardware?
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
arn
Apr 21, 10:44 PM
Perhaps a "Relevant" button then.
I guess leaving it as a +1 button is pretty much the same thing without using a word.
*shrug*
I just think it may be more troublesome than helpful to have a -1 button. If someone disagrees with a post, they usually respond with an argument. If they agree, unless they have something to add, hitting the +1 button would work, and it would clear up the "Agreed" and "+1" posts.
Well, some places limit the ability to downvote for higher level accounts. Like those who have been around or gained a certain amount of reputation. While others have no downvote ability at all.
arn
I guess leaving it as a +1 button is pretty much the same thing without using a word.
*shrug*
I just think it may be more troublesome than helpful to have a -1 button. If someone disagrees with a post, they usually respond with an argument. If they agree, unless they have something to add, hitting the +1 button would work, and it would clear up the "Agreed" and "+1" posts.
Well, some places limit the ability to downvote for higher level accounts. Like those who have been around or gained a certain amount of reputation. While others have no downvote ability at all.
arn
Macky-Mac
May 6, 12:32 PM
Of course we should . The free market would put him/her out of business after they killed enough people. :rolleyes:
and it probably would lead to cheaper medical care since doctors would no longer be required to go to medical school or prove they know anything about medicine :eek:
and it probably would lead to cheaper medical care since doctors would no longer be required to go to medical school or prove they know anything about medicine :eek:
hobo.hopkins
Mar 28, 04:46 PM
This not so subtle shift is a terrifying glimpse into the future of our beloved OSX.
That is so crazy it's ridiculous. There is no evidence to support your statement. Mac OS X is not headed towards the "walled garden" universe that everyone seems to freak out over. Apple's just giving people who don't know anything about computers an easy way to purchase and find applications.
I do agree, however, that by not including applications outside of the Mac App Store Apple is diminishing the value of the award. I believe it is within their right to do so, although I don't like it.
That is so crazy it's ridiculous. There is no evidence to support your statement. Mac OS X is not headed towards the "walled garden" universe that everyone seems to freak out over. Apple's just giving people who don't know anything about computers an easy way to purchase and find applications.
I do agree, however, that by not including applications outside of the Mac App Store Apple is diminishing the value of the award. I believe it is within their right to do so, although I don't like it.
jagolden
Sep 12, 07:00 AM
Daffy Duck is from Warner, not Disney.
Sufferin' Soccatacsshhhh!!!!
Sufferin' Soccatacsshhhh!!!!
kcmac
Mar 28, 05:39 PM
Apple does not offer all of its own apps in the app store. Is Final Cut Studio in the app store?
This requirement will have two effects
(1) make the award irrelevant because everyone will know that the best apps were not even in the race and
(2) Shows that Apple is greedy by asking others to do what they don't.
At least now we know office 2011 won't be under consideration.
This requirement will have two effects
(1) make the award irrelevant because everyone will know that the best apps were not even in the race and
(2) Shows that Apple is greedy by asking others to do what they don't.
At least now we know office 2011 won't be under consideration.
Warbrain
Sep 12, 07:51 AM
Isn't today the start of the Paris expo? So let's see...6 hours ahead of me here in Chicago...1 PM! They're updating it for the fact that the expo is up and running.
No comments:
Post a Comment