Ommid
Apr 25, 11:49 AM
4s ftw.
dejo
Apr 27, 01:01 PM
Yes, that's exactly what I want to accomplish dejo.
Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
Please, enlighten me .. what is the difference between the countdown-timer and NSTimer?
Let me ask you this: what do you think the difference is?
I though you must use NSTimer to get a countdown or count up timer.
Using an NSTimer is certainly a common approach to the problem of modeling a countdown timer, but it's certainly not the only one. Because the timer is tied to the main run loop, it is not guaranteed to actually fire every second (in your case). In that case, perhaps the use of NSDate to keep track of seconds elapsed would be a better approach.
Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
Please, enlighten me .. what is the difference between the countdown-timer and NSTimer?
Let me ask you this: what do you think the difference is?
I though you must use NSTimer to get a countdown or count up timer.
Using an NSTimer is certainly a common approach to the problem of modeling a countdown timer, but it's certainly not the only one. Because the timer is tied to the main run loop, it is not guaranteed to actually fire every second (in your case). In that case, perhaps the use of NSDate to keep track of seconds elapsed would be a better approach.
Surely
Apr 5, 05:36 PM
Wait....does the app have ads?
Someone let me know if there's a paid ad-free version........
Someone let me know if there's a paid ad-free version........
GadgetAddict
Apr 29, 01:55 PM
What stage will this be stable enough to use as your main OS? :apple:
When it is publicly released.
When it is publicly released.
more...
pianojoe
Mar 24, 08:07 PM
Is there an emulator, so I can run the Original Public Beta on my 11" MBA?
Jaymes
Mar 28, 02:13 PM
Welcome to 1984.
more...
paul4339
Mar 28, 06:51 PM
makes no difference if it's an Mac Appstore design award or just Apple design award, they'll just choose the winner from the Appstore.
ctdonath
Sep 29, 04:03 PM
maybe those with private baths for each bedroom care more about their guests/kids than you?
Maybe that's not an axiom for "degree of caring" for some people. To the contrary, and considering that Jobs seems to have an affinity to some Japanese aesthetic sensibilities, the "eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing" imperative for family space presumes some degree of sharing of such spaces with no negative notion of "lesser". To make all such facilities that private makes them isolated, stifling the family-oriented intimacy of the desired imperative. Perhaps more so, the extra bedrooms get only part-time use, so there is no need to commit extensive resources full-time to serving each of them individually (see prior comments on why no library/gym/sauna/screening-room/etc.).
they don't think they deserve better than others.
"Deserve" is a loaded term here.
It's his home. You're a guest therein. Yes, the homeowner gets the best facilities therein, and only the snooty see that as a snub. If nothing else, he's there and using some areas full-time/daily, while guests are occasional.
Of late I'm more struck by how many people presume everyone else must think like them, and impute malice where others don't. Whither celebrating diversity?
Maybe that's not an axiom for "degree of caring" for some people. To the contrary, and considering that Jobs seems to have an affinity to some Japanese aesthetic sensibilities, the "eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing" imperative for family space presumes some degree of sharing of such spaces with no negative notion of "lesser". To make all such facilities that private makes them isolated, stifling the family-oriented intimacy of the desired imperative. Perhaps more so, the extra bedrooms get only part-time use, so there is no need to commit extensive resources full-time to serving each of them individually (see prior comments on why no library/gym/sauna/screening-room/etc.).
they don't think they deserve better than others.
"Deserve" is a loaded term here.
It's his home. You're a guest therein. Yes, the homeowner gets the best facilities therein, and only the snooty see that as a snub. If nothing else, he's there and using some areas full-time/daily, while guests are occasional.
Of late I'm more struck by how many people presume everyone else must think like them, and impute malice where others don't. Whither celebrating diversity?
more...
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:29 AM
Is this new?
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
Simple answer: No.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
Simple answer: No.
doctoree
Apr 15, 02:51 PM
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
They could employ the same trick they employ in the iPad where they have a plastic Logo in the alu back and the antenna behind the plastic logo..
This shell is still fake as Apple would never use visible, hard edges for the bevelled back but a smooth roundness. Just like the ipad
They could employ the same trick they employ in the iPad where they have a plastic Logo in the alu back and the antenna behind the plastic logo..
This shell is still fake as Apple would never use visible, hard edges for the bevelled back but a smooth roundness. Just like the ipad
more...
Mac_Freak
Sep 7, 10:14 PM
I've never heard myself say "Yo, Yo, wut up dude?" either, and yet I still like Kanye West. And you can't assume peoples musical tastes just because of their job or race. Computer people and reporters could have enjoyed the music as well. You can't say that they didn't with any certainty. I enjoy all sorts of music, and I'm sure many other people do as well.
No, I downloaded it from somewhere else.
*wink wink, nudge nudge*
Actually, Profilers can say a lot about you just by looking where you work and what you do.
Let me clarify that a bit more, as I have failed to do that before.
Keynote is not a place for such lyrics/word to spoken/said by any one. THis is a place where people are serious about what they are doing and what is going on. After watching the whole keynote and then at the to see Kanye West was a big change in the whole mood in the room. Just take a look at the audience that was there, they all where stuned.
P.S. my ost about Kanye West is bais, and is because i don't like hiphop/rap. Not because of artisits but because of the lyrics and that whole "gangster" attitude.
No, I downloaded it from somewhere else.
*wink wink, nudge nudge*
Actually, Profilers can say a lot about you just by looking where you work and what you do.
Let me clarify that a bit more, as I have failed to do that before.
Keynote is not a place for such lyrics/word to spoken/said by any one. THis is a place where people are serious about what they are doing and what is going on. After watching the whole keynote and then at the to see Kanye West was a big change in the whole mood in the room. Just take a look at the audience that was there, they all where stuned.
P.S. my ost about Kanye West is bais, and is because i don't like hiphop/rap. Not because of artisits but because of the lyrics and that whole "gangster" attitude.
resom
Apr 6, 07:26 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61bWpbSXkgL._SL380_.jpg
Crysis 2 on PS3
and Britney Spears Deluxe CD
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GNTMvK2yL._SL380_.jpg
Crysis 2 on PS3
and Britney Spears Deluxe CD
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GNTMvK2yL._SL380_.jpg
more...
Sydde
May 5, 12:25 PM
"Well regulated" even. Sounds like "regulations" to me. ;)
Scholars have said that that phrase is equivalent to "well trained" in the context. Which means the constitution mandates firearm safety training for gun owners.
Scholars have said that that phrase is equivalent to "well trained" in the context. Which means the constitution mandates firearm safety training for gun owners.
eyelobes
Mar 17, 08:28 AM
Good for you man!!!
That punk ass stoner gets what he gets. I have a brother and a broth-in-law that are both stoner drop outs and half-ass everything they do. Everyone needs a push to set them straight, be it jail or getting fired for failing to pay attention to detail.
As a 2 time war vet, if the scouts on my team failed to pay attention to detail i would be dead right now. As we always used to say "get your head out of your 4th point of contact before you get someone killed"
That punk ass stoner gets what he gets. I have a brother and a broth-in-law that are both stoner drop outs and half-ass everything they do. Everyone needs a push to set them straight, be it jail or getting fired for failing to pay attention to detail.
As a 2 time war vet, if the scouts on my team failed to pay attention to detail i would be dead right now. As we always used to say "get your head out of your 4th point of contact before you get someone killed"
more...
Sedrick
Mar 19, 05:46 AM
iPhone is a great target because of the "holier than thou" culture that Steve Jobs helped create. And now they come out with a phone with a shatter-prone back, flat/square as a brick, still retains the small 3.5" screen and the antenna problems. This is all excellent fuel for the haters.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
NinjaHERO
Sep 28, 09:16 PM
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work? ;)
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
more...
TheWheelMan
Mar 17, 12:53 PM
Really VictoriaStudent, lol I agree with BForstal on what people would do in the same situation 100 percent, and I'm not trying to brag about anything, and I cant even believe this thread has reached 3 pages. Sec I have no reason to troll!!! I have been a member of this forum since and even though I have never really posted anything I have found wealth of knowledge over the years from people in these forums. Wow and you cannot judge a person's character by a mistake a cashier made in a store!!! Like I said everybody is entitled to there own opinion, If you were to make note of the mistake to the store if it happened to you and it makes you feel so highly above any one else, more power to you. As far as I'm concerned this is one time I actually got a break on a apple product.
You're probably right, but the difference is that most would either have enough of a guilty conscience, or at least enough fear of getting busted, to NOT go telling it in a public forum and then copping some sort of superior attitude over it when criticized about it.
By knowingly taking it you did in fact break the law, and now you've publicly incriminated yourself to boot. Your morality is unfair to question given how the majority of people may have done the same thing (Meaning, "Who are we to judge?"). Your stupidity, however, is quite evident, and those are the ones who usually end up paying for their crimes one way or another. Karma is, in fact, a b@tch. Especially when you paint a bullseye on your @ss and dare it to strike you down.
You're probably right, but the difference is that most would either have enough of a guilty conscience, or at least enough fear of getting busted, to NOT go telling it in a public forum and then copping some sort of superior attitude over it when criticized about it.
By knowingly taking it you did in fact break the law, and now you've publicly incriminated yourself to boot. Your morality is unfair to question given how the majority of people may have done the same thing (Meaning, "Who are we to judge?"). Your stupidity, however, is quite evident, and those are the ones who usually end up paying for their crimes one way or another. Karma is, in fact, a b@tch. Especially when you paint a bullseye on your @ss and dare it to strike you down.
tvachon
Jan 9, 01:44 PM
I dont know if i can take it, what is the average wait after the keynote finishes? 2 hours?
CaoCao
Apr 17, 02:25 PM
I doubt Lee missed your point; maybe your point is just undefendable. For example, explain how you can prove that adding a bit of content about modern history will somehow force something else out of the curriculum. That there are a finite amount of class hours isn't good enough.
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
malim
Apr 15, 07:49 PM
I personally will not rule out that this image is 100% fake. Inspecting the image closely reveal that there are a dust speck. Dust speck exist on the camera lens or sensor and the photos does have that. Another thing is if the camera lens dirty because of probably moist it will have those specks.
I am sure based on other rumors that Apple already booked the place for special event this June might also can be relate to this.
If the next generation of iPhone or iPod shell are made from aluminium it is possible. Everything about technology is possible. So nothing impossible to have an aluminium casing if someone said that it will interfere with the signal as lots of component inside the current devices consist of many sorts of metal.
But I thought that a bit curvature at the surface would look better.
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/15/questionable-next-generation-iphone-rear-shell-images-surface/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_1_500.jpg
We have received a set of images purportedly depicting an iPad-inspired rear shell design for the next-generation iPhone. While we have questions about the validity of the images given their claimed origins and other issues, they are interesting enough that we have decided to publish them here on Page 2 for discussion purposes.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_2_500.jpg
Text on the back of the claimed shell indicate that it is a 64 GB model, and the first line of small text includes Apple's traditional "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in China" information. Unfortunately, the images are not of high enough quality to interpret the second line of text, which would contain the model number and FCC and IC ID numbers.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_3_500.jpg
The images also show cutouts for the same physical features found on existing iPhone models, with a circular camera lens hole at the top left of the rear shell, space for a ring/silent switch and volume rocker along the side, and dock connector, microphone, speaker, and a pair of screw holes along the bottom.
Metadata included with the images indicates that they have passed through Photoshop CS4, with the first two images carrying yesterday's date while the third carries a date of March 23rd.
Article Link: Questionable Next-Generation iPhone Rear Shell Images Surface (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/15/questionable-next-generation-iphone-rear-shell-images-surface/)
I am sure based on other rumors that Apple already booked the place for special event this June might also can be relate to this.
If the next generation of iPhone or iPod shell are made from aluminium it is possible. Everything about technology is possible. So nothing impossible to have an aluminium casing if someone said that it will interfere with the signal as lots of component inside the current devices consist of many sorts of metal.
But I thought that a bit curvature at the surface would look better.
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/15/questionable-next-generation-iphone-rear-shell-images-surface/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_1_500.jpg
We have received a set of images purportedly depicting an iPad-inspired rear shell design for the next-generation iPhone. While we have questions about the validity of the images given their claimed origins and other issues, they are interesting enough that we have decided to publish them here on Page 2 for discussion purposes.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_2_500.jpg
Text on the back of the claimed shell indicate that it is a 64 GB model, and the first line of small text includes Apple's traditional "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in China" information. Unfortunately, the images are not of high enough quality to interpret the second line of text, which would contain the model number and FCC and IC ID numbers.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/15/130851-iphone_shell_3_500.jpg
The images also show cutouts for the same physical features found on existing iPhone models, with a circular camera lens hole at the top left of the rear shell, space for a ring/silent switch and volume rocker along the side, and dock connector, microphone, speaker, and a pair of screw holes along the bottom.
Metadata included with the images indicates that they have passed through Photoshop CS4, with the first two images carrying yesterday's date while the third carries a date of March 23rd.
Article Link: Questionable Next-Generation iPhone Rear Shell Images Surface (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/15/questionable-next-generation-iphone-rear-shell-images-surface/)
Mr_Brightside_@
Apr 11, 07:38 AM
Excellent sig. ;)
Shoulda seen the last one
Shoulda seen the last one
Jony Mac
Apr 13, 08:42 AM
What are you doing with a camera shot of my servant's quarters? :confused:
Ha ha. I've never stayed here, I'm thinking my wife will like to stay in a castle.
Ha ha. I've never stayed here, I'm thinking my wife will like to stay in a castle.
balamw
Apr 26, 08:33 PM
Of course I like help Dejo and I know you have help a lot people, you have even helped me before this thread and I appreciate it a lot. I said that because so many seasoned developers just throw that bomb at newbies so often when they try to find answers in forums (not just this one), it happens not only in Programming but in many other professional environments, people just shoot to kill when some new guy makes a basic mistake, but luckily not all, some people do like to help (or enjoy) and have the patience to explain even the dumbest detail.
Please take the time to read the two guides I linked in my response a few posts back.
This: Easy fellows.. :) .. those are not pointers ...
Then yes, they are indeed pointers to timers.
is exactly what they seek to avoid.
Help us help you.
You take it as a "bomb" when in fact it is a request to get on the same page.
B
I want to tell one timer to start and if I press cancel, invalidate it. Then If I press start again, call the second timer. (I do this because I read that you can't reuse a timer after you invalidate it).
So this will effectively be a stopwatch that can only by started and stopped twice?
Is that the intent?
EDIT: Have a look at this tutorial: http://www.apptite.be/blog/ios/sample-ios-application-stopwatch/ Do you understand why it doesn't need to define two timers?
B
Please take the time to read the two guides I linked in my response a few posts back.
This: Easy fellows.. :) .. those are not pointers ...
Then yes, they are indeed pointers to timers.
is exactly what they seek to avoid.
Help us help you.
You take it as a "bomb" when in fact it is a request to get on the same page.
B
I want to tell one timer to start and if I press cancel, invalidate it. Then If I press start again, call the second timer. (I do this because I read that you can't reuse a timer after you invalidate it).
So this will effectively be a stopwatch that can only by started and stopped twice?
Is that the intent?
EDIT: Have a look at this tutorial: http://www.apptite.be/blog/ios/sample-ios-application-stopwatch/ Do you understand why it doesn't need to define two timers?
B
No comments:
Post a Comment