BlueRevolution
Oct 28, 02:36 PM
That's hardly surprising. I'm more interested in the 100% legal bit - it's interesting that Apple hasn't yet moved to explicitly ban running OS X on non-Apple hardware.
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.
Bistroengine
Apr 5, 05:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
first-chill!, second-chill a little more, third-am i not within my own rights to call something as i see it?or is that reserved solely for you?the choice of words i use are just that my choice so take your opinion about me elsewhere as after some thought iv decided I couldn't care any less what you say.
Yes, you have the right to your own opinion and I am quite chilled, thank you. Also, I never directly made a comment about you or your character as I really don't know you at all and I can safely say I have no opinion of you one way or the other.
first-chill!, second-chill a little more, third-am i not within my own rights to call something as i see it?or is that reserved solely for you?the choice of words i use are just that my choice so take your opinion about me elsewhere as after some thought iv decided I couldn't care any less what you say.
Yes, you have the right to your own opinion and I am quite chilled, thank you. Also, I never directly made a comment about you or your character as I really don't know you at all and I can safely say I have no opinion of you one way or the other.
Daiden
Oct 6, 11:36 AM
AT&T drops a ton of calls in my area, but it's no different than when I used Verizon.
holmesf
Apr 30, 10:19 PM
You are talking about things that would happen if they closed it today. I said 15 years. :)
And it's not a doomsday proposition or anything. That's just where the entire industry will go.
15 years from now? By then the tech world will be so unrecognizable we might as well not debate it. 15 years ago I was using a Mac LC, all my software came from the local mac reseller on floppy disk, and I was just beginning to hear about this whole "Internet" thing. I don't think anybody at the time imagined things turning out quite as they did. Even predicting things 5 years down the line is pretty damned hard in the tech world.
Which is to say, you may very well be right when we talk about 15 years from now. On the other hand, perhaps 15 years from now the whole notion of an app store will seem like a quaint remnant of the past.
And it's not a doomsday proposition or anything. That's just where the entire industry will go.
15 years from now? By then the tech world will be so unrecognizable we might as well not debate it. 15 years ago I was using a Mac LC, all my software came from the local mac reseller on floppy disk, and I was just beginning to hear about this whole "Internet" thing. I don't think anybody at the time imagined things turning out quite as they did. Even predicting things 5 years down the line is pretty damned hard in the tech world.
Which is to say, you may very well be right when we talk about 15 years from now. On the other hand, perhaps 15 years from now the whole notion of an app store will seem like a quaint remnant of the past.
apfhex
Jan 9, 03:41 PM
...You suck.
:o At least I wasn't the first. :o I totally forgot. Quick, edit my quote in your post and no one else had to know. :)
:o At least I wasn't the first. :o I totally forgot. Quick, edit my quote in your post and no one else had to know. :)
kentkomine
Apr 25, 03:03 PM
This sounds pretty sweet! Hopefully its not "just a white iPhone 4". I could really use an iPhone 4S.
JKK photography
Apr 10, 11:06 AM
Lion will contain Mac OS X Server. So there, there's your new features.
As an Apple user, I'm thrilled that I'm not afflicted with the need to put down Windows in order to boost my ego.
He's not putting down Windows. He's simply talking about the Windows NT version, which (for Windows 7) is currently 6.1. It is unknown as to whether or not MS will go to 6.2, or maybe to 7.0.
So, when you insult someone, have your facts straight. A simple Google search usually suffices.
As an Apple user, I'm thrilled that I'm not afflicted with the need to put down Windows in order to boost my ego.
He's not putting down Windows. He's simply talking about the Windows NT version, which (for Windows 7) is currently 6.1. It is unknown as to whether or not MS will go to 6.2, or maybe to 7.0.
So, when you insult someone, have your facts straight. A simple Google search usually suffices.
ZilogZ80
Mar 17, 06:48 AM
Man, this thread is full of douchiness. Karma is symbolic, not literal.
Right, that's why I said People should conduct themselves according to their moral code. As in, people should be good because they want to be good - not because they are scared into being good.
Besides which, karma is most definately literal. Possibly not amongst coffeeshop-hipster-douches like yourself who like to bleat about it on the internet, but certainly amongst those who originated the concept.
Right, that's why I said People should conduct themselves according to their moral code. As in, people should be good because they want to be good - not because they are scared into being good.
Besides which, karma is most definately literal. Possibly not amongst coffeeshop-hipster-douches like yourself who like to bleat about it on the internet, but certainly amongst those who originated the concept.
BornAgainMac
Jul 21, 09:28 AM
Apple cracks me up. They say what they are thinking.
Abstract
Apr 11, 08:41 AM
Phiaton Moderna MS-400 headphones. :)
Review. (http://www.digitaltrends.com/headphone-reviews/phiaton-ms-400-second-generation-review/)
Another review from Head-fi (http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/495667/review-phiaton-ms-400).
I got them because the hardshell case will be very useful, and it's easy to drive, un-amped, with an iPhone. :) I could have bought them in all-black, but these are less boring!! I was also considering the Denon D510r (includes iPhone remote), Klipsch Image One (supposedly has overwhelming bass and only average sound quality), Shure SRH-750 and 840 (both are too big), or even Beyerdynamics t50p (was in serious consideration). I still think I made a good choice though!
http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/2009/07/ms-400-3.jpg/430_310_resize.jpg
I also bought a pair of Denon C560r in-ears. I bought the same pair 6 months ago, but I lost them. :( They're fantastic, and the remote control is sooooo useful!! I have also owned Klipsch S4i, and I think these are better.
http://www.gayakuman.com/uploads/2010/05/denon-ah-c560r-and-ah-c260r-ear-buds-ipod-control.jpg
Review. (http://www.digitaltrends.com/headphone-reviews/phiaton-ms-400-second-generation-review/)
Another review from Head-fi (http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/495667/review-phiaton-ms-400).
I got them because the hardshell case will be very useful, and it's easy to drive, un-amped, with an iPhone. :) I could have bought them in all-black, but these are less boring!! I was also considering the Denon D510r (includes iPhone remote), Klipsch Image One (supposedly has overwhelming bass and only average sound quality), Shure SRH-750 and 840 (both are too big), or even Beyerdynamics t50p (was in serious consideration). I still think I made a good choice though!
http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/2009/07/ms-400-3.jpg/430_310_resize.jpg
I also bought a pair of Denon C560r in-ears. I bought the same pair 6 months ago, but I lost them. :( They're fantastic, and the remote control is sooooo useful!! I have also owned Klipsch S4i, and I think these are better.
http://www.gayakuman.com/uploads/2010/05/denon-ah-c560r-and-ah-c260r-ear-buds-ipod-control.jpg
camelsnot
Mar 17, 07:04 AM
Haaaaaaa just shared a launch day story, and the majority of you would have hauled ass with iPad in hand for the price I paid. Haters lmfao
not so much. With that kind of screw up, I would've gone back. yes, you are bragging about someone elses mistake and how you capitalized on it.
Douches eventually get theirs. People like that tend to get what's coming to them 10 fold, regardless if you feel you need to debate if it's karma or "moral code". I bet you're one those people who finds a wallet with $50, credit cards, driver's license and a condom and tries to use all the contents then throws the wallet away. Do you kick dogs too?
Your other option is to go back to Best Buy and explain what happened, saying you didn't realize the error until settling your bank accounts while doing bills. That's if you actually have any bank accounts.. or have a conscious at all.
Have an adequate day.
not so much. With that kind of screw up, I would've gone back. yes, you are bragging about someone elses mistake and how you capitalized on it.
Douches eventually get theirs. People like that tend to get what's coming to them 10 fold, regardless if you feel you need to debate if it's karma or "moral code". I bet you're one those people who finds a wallet with $50, credit cards, driver's license and a condom and tries to use all the contents then throws the wallet away. Do you kick dogs too?
Your other option is to go back to Best Buy and explain what happened, saying you didn't realize the error until settling your bank accounts while doing bills. That's if you actually have any bank accounts.. or have a conscious at all.
Have an adequate day.
nim23
Apr 16, 06:45 AM
I believe these could be real...
I made a comment the other day about a spotting and this was exactly the kind of this the person saw.
And it makes perfect sense not having a 3G bar at the top, perhaps there will be a cheaper non-3G version out? Would that be a possibility?
I'd also say that my only complaint with the 3G and 3GS was the plastic back... The metal back on the 1st gen was brilliant, and sturdy... I was surprised to see them defer from that with gen2 and 3...
I made a comment the other day about a spotting and this was exactly the kind of this the person saw.
And it makes perfect sense not having a 3G bar at the top, perhaps there will be a cheaper non-3G version out? Would that be a possibility?
I'd also say that my only complaint with the 3G and 3GS was the plastic back... The metal back on the 1st gen was brilliant, and sturdy... I was surprised to see them defer from that with gen2 and 3...
linux2mac
Mar 24, 08:42 PM
As a switcher in I feel I have to give a big thanks to Microsoft and Windows Vista - after all, if Vista hadn't been so terrible, I might not have switched ;)
+1
Same here. Went to Linux then to Mac.
+1
Same here. Went to Linux then to Mac.
mrsir2009
Mar 5, 03:12 PM
Why is Apple the only tech company that makes unique products? All the other big ones seem to just drop in behind Apple after they invent something... Examples:
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�Pretty much every non-Apple tablet.
�iMac lookalikes.
�I've even seem some unibody copy cats...
Why don't they try and come up with something of their own instead of trying to "make a better Apple product"? Its annoying... :mad:
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�Pretty much every non-Apple tablet.
�iMac lookalikes.
�I've even seem some unibody copy cats...
Why don't they try and come up with something of their own instead of trying to "make a better Apple product"? Its annoying... :mad:
tempusfugit
Oct 6, 07:58 PM
ATT is unbelievably good in Minneapolis, but my long drives to and from chicago are marked by a whole lot of EDGE which sucks!
kcmac
Mar 28, 06:33 PM
Hyperbole.. dear lord - over exaggeration.
* use your favourite mac listing website of your choice - you only need to find a few, and they don't take long to find. Only need to do this once.
* Pretty much all companies allow you to re-download, so no need to worry there.
* a lot of software listing sites allow reviews, for example, mac update, versiontracker
* most software companies use reputable payment processors, larger companies often use their own - and can be trusted.
* UNLIKE, the mac appstore, you can very often download TRIAL versions so you can TRY BEFORE you BUY!
Sure, the mac app store is convenient, but shouldn't be relied upon as the only source of software due to its limitations and limited software listings.
If someone never ventures out side the appstore then they'll miss out on gems such as 1Password, Launchbar, bettertouchtool... and many others.
Thank you for a nice post. More of these please. No sarcasm.
* use your favourite mac listing website of your choice - you only need to find a few, and they don't take long to find. Only need to do this once.
* Pretty much all companies allow you to re-download, so no need to worry there.
* a lot of software listing sites allow reviews, for example, mac update, versiontracker
* most software companies use reputable payment processors, larger companies often use their own - and can be trusted.
* UNLIKE, the mac appstore, you can very often download TRIAL versions so you can TRY BEFORE you BUY!
Sure, the mac app store is convenient, but shouldn't be relied upon as the only source of software due to its limitations and limited software listings.
If someone never ventures out side the appstore then they'll miss out on gems such as 1Password, Launchbar, bettertouchtool... and many others.
Thank you for a nice post. More of these please. No sarcasm.
msb3079
Apr 25, 03:45 PM
I'd much rather have a slightly bigger screen (mostly for less "dead" space) than performance improvements, when I'm happy with current performance. WTF do you people do on your phones anyway...??
BRLawyer
Oct 3, 06:40 AM
Hello "lawyer". No legal permission is required for reverse engineering.
Really? Which jurisdiction you talk from? And what kind of IPR are we considering here? Have ya ever heard of the DMCA, which forbids reverse engineering except for very limited purposes?
If you don't really know legal issues, please spare us from such glib comments.
Really? Which jurisdiction you talk from? And what kind of IPR are we considering here? Have ya ever heard of the DMCA, which forbids reverse engineering except for very limited purposes?
If you don't really know legal issues, please spare us from such glib comments.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 11:15 AM
Great, a shoot out on a plane loaded with innocent bystanders. :rolleyes:
I'd take that 1 in a billion risk (especially since they have non piercing projectiles) over being heckled and manhandled by TSA any day. And that way I have at least a chance to stay alive if a hijacker makes through security, which they will eventually do even with current "security standards". International travel security was sufficient before 9/11. All they needed to do was raise US domestic security to that level and add sky marshals to ALL not just some flights. Problem solved. Again, 9/11 were domestic flights, NOT international. There was a security problem with DOMESTIC travel in the US, NOT international. You can roll your eyes until they pop out, doesn't change the fact that you are being fooled by the fearmongering of governments ever since 9/11 so they can piece by piece whittle away your rights to privacy and not having to risk your health for stuff like business travel.
I'd take that 1 in a billion risk (especially since they have non piercing projectiles) over being heckled and manhandled by TSA any day. And that way I have at least a chance to stay alive if a hijacker makes through security, which they will eventually do even with current "security standards". International travel security was sufficient before 9/11. All they needed to do was raise US domestic security to that level and add sky marshals to ALL not just some flights. Problem solved. Again, 9/11 were domestic flights, NOT international. There was a security problem with DOMESTIC travel in the US, NOT international. You can roll your eyes until they pop out, doesn't change the fact that you are being fooled by the fearmongering of governments ever since 9/11 so they can piece by piece whittle away your rights to privacy and not having to risk your health for stuff like business travel.
stoid
Aug 7, 08:18 PM
making the acds a higher resolution definitely means that there will be new ones soon just like the powerbooks screen before the macbook pro
Well then I guess it's awhile until we get new ACDs then, since the resolution stayed the same.
Well then I guess it's awhile until we get new ACDs then, since the resolution stayed the same.
Stevenup7002
Jan 14, 06:37 PM
If anyone sitting in the front row of macworld, or works backstage there, please, bring your apple remotes and reak havok during a demo presentation. But seriously, DONT
-Steve
-Steve
Tundraboy
Apr 29, 02:01 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
I feel the same way, it'll be ironic when you have to use a Windows PC to jailbreak Apple computers so you can install software that you want!!!!!! When it comes to that I'll be moving on as well.
I feel the same way, it'll be ironic when you have to use a Windows PC to jailbreak Apple computers so you can install software that you want!!!!!! When it comes to that I'll be moving on as well.
zep1977
Mar 24, 03:24 PM
Time really flies.
I remember walking into the local CompUSA and picking up my copy. They had them stuffed in the back corner along with one G4 that wasn't even working along with it's broken CD drive cover.
Amazing how the times have changed since then.
Looking forward to the next 10 years of the Mac OS.
:apple:
I remember walking into the local CompUSA and picking up my copy. They had them stuffed in the back corner along with one G4 that wasn't even working along with it's broken CD drive cover.
Amazing how the times have changed since then.
Looking forward to the next 10 years of the Mac OS.
:apple:
No comments:
Post a Comment