Pressure
Oct 19, 10:23 AM
Aye, international numbers would be good to see.
Good news for Apple :)
Good news for Apple :)
MacBoobsPro
Sep 12, 04:14 AM
About 2 hours prior to sparrow-fart.
3am... can't wait to spend yet another late night in front of the computer waiting for Apple to release yet another product I can't afford.
At about 2am try downloading itunes manually from the itunes page. It will still say 6.x but it may very well be 7. That should keep you occupied for a bit :D Twice i have noticed they upload the new version but keep the previous version number on the page until its announced. I had a play with 5 and 6 about half an hour before they were officially released. :D
3am... can't wait to spend yet another late night in front of the computer waiting for Apple to release yet another product I can't afford.
At about 2am try downloading itunes manually from the itunes page. It will still say 6.x but it may very well be 7. That should keep you occupied for a bit :D Twice i have noticed they upload the new version but keep the previous version number on the page until its announced. I had a play with 5 and 6 about half an hour before they were officially released. :D
maclaptop
Apr 15, 07:47 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/15/171049-android_music_cloud_syncing.jpg
Image from Droid Life (http://www.droid-life.com/2011/03/07/google-music-syncing-to-the-cloud-working-on-android-2-3-3-roms/)
All Things Digital reports (http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20110415/google-music-label-talks-going-backwards/)
Considering the source "All Things Digital", Apple's personal mouthpiece, it's no wonder it has a Pro-Apple bias.
Of course Google's going to have growing pains. It's new territory for them. They'll get it sorted out.
Image from Droid Life (http://www.droid-life.com/2011/03/07/google-music-syncing-to-the-cloud-working-on-android-2-3-3-roms/)
All Things Digital reports (http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20110415/google-music-label-talks-going-backwards/)
Considering the source "All Things Digital", Apple's personal mouthpiece, it's no wonder it has a Pro-Apple bias.
Of course Google's going to have growing pains. It's new territory for them. They'll get it sorted out.
tofagerl
Apr 29, 01:18 PM
Can I possible take the power, and switch the magic with something else? Like pizzazz, or awesomeness or something?
schwell
Oct 11, 08:07 PM
I too came from Verizon where I hardly ever dropped a call. I can't remember it ever being a problem. Now I have my second iPhone (first was with tmobile) and I have to say that AT&T is the worst carrier I've ever used. I live in Chicago and not a day goes by where at least 1 call is dropped (usually more than 1).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
You have hundreds of phone choices.
I doubt the legislation would make people happier. Most of you would find something else to complain about (e.g. price, features).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
You have hundreds of phone choices.
I doubt the legislation would make people happier. Most of you would find something else to complain about (e.g. price, features).
�algiris
Mar 24, 03:54 PM
Ten years, and TheWormyFruit� still hasn't FTFF (http://tinyurl.com/66wkbe3)!
Don't be ridiculous.
Don't be ridiculous.
cwerdna
Nov 24, 05:03 PM
The video iPod discount is a snoozer... PC/Mac Connection have been selling the 5.5G 30 gig video iPod for $219 after rebate for awhile now. I'd have to pay tax buying from the Apple store vs. no tax at PC Connection.
turtlebud
Nov 24, 11:36 PM
Quoting from the Apple website:
"Shopping event is available only at the online Apple Store on November 24, from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. PST and at Apple retail stores."
So sale continues for a few more hours.
hey, you're right - i don't know what the rep was talking about, but I believed her.
"Shopping event is available only at the online Apple Store on November 24, from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. PST and at Apple retail stores."
So sale continues for a few more hours.
hey, you're right - i don't know what the rep was talking about, but I believed her.
dpaanlka
Jan 12, 06:37 PM
You all need to stop worrying about Steve Jobs rightful attitude is. Apple lost him once. Ten years later he came back. Now ten years after that, you all can't stand him? Are you kidding me? He can do whatever he wants! Worry about something more important!
And white text is not the best choice, because the background of MacRumors isn't white, it is color #FAFAFA. Get with the program people.
And white text is not the best choice, because the background of MacRumors isn't white, it is color #FAFAFA. Get with the program people.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 06:52 AM
The radiation dosage from any properly maintained active scanner is still orders of magnitude less than what you get from a 4-hour flight at 10 km. Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
Yes, the same dosage in what, a second versus 4 hours? It's a beautiful piece of misinformation you are spreading there. It's the same cumulative dose, however over a vastly different timeframe. If you believe that timescale of exposure has no bearing of the effect of a given dose, then that's your choice.
Yes, the same dosage in what, a second versus 4 hours? It's a beautiful piece of misinformation you are spreading there. It's the same cumulative dose, however over a vastly different timeframe. If you believe that timescale of exposure has no bearing of the effect of a given dose, then that's your choice.
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 12:51 PM
You seem to have missed the "... MORE than iPhone 3gs" part.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
You don't get the real picture about performance from that average. What are the call drop numbers when people don't "hold it wrong"? Let's say they were 50 fewer on the 4. That would indicate a massively improved overall antenna design. So you'd have an antenna that holds on to calls about exactly as well on average, with the *ability to greatly exceed previous performance depending on use*. That can't be ignored.
And not all dropped calls are signal related. Some are capacity related and we have no idea how AT&T runs those numbers.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
You don't get the real picture about performance from that average. What are the call drop numbers when people don't "hold it wrong"? Let's say they were 50 fewer on the 4. That would indicate a massively improved overall antenna design. So you'd have an antenna that holds on to calls about exactly as well on average, with the *ability to greatly exceed previous performance depending on use*. That can't be ignored.
And not all dropped calls are signal related. Some are capacity related and we have no idea how AT&T runs those numbers.
aeaglex07
Apr 29, 03:52 PM
I noticed most of the criticism stems from the changes in iCal and Address Book which are both disgusting. Sadly they havent changed yet
azz0r
Mar 17, 04:27 PM
Haters going to hate.
Congrats.
The dude ain't going to get fired.
Congrats.
The dude ain't going to get fired.
JKK photography
Apr 8, 05:09 PM
You can say that about any consumer product.
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
SAD*FACED*CLOWN
Apr 16, 10:00 AM
these pictures are from a story I read on engadget about some guy that made an aluminum case for his iPhone...and strangley I saw it around March 23, my birthday....which is why I remember it
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 05:28 PM
Only if they are walking around naked. There are still going to be stalls right?
Right.
Eyes were made for looking, so men look. Sorry.
But I bet if an unwelcome advance were made in a unisex washroom, any male with balls would come forward, and make life more complicated for the insurgent.
I know I would.
Right.
Eyes were made for looking, so men look. Sorry.
But I bet if an unwelcome advance were made in a unisex washroom, any male with balls would come forward, and make life more complicated for the insurgent.
I know I would.
maz94protege
Oct 29, 07:35 AM
AT&T drops a ton of calls in my area, but it's no different than when I used Verizon.
Same with me. its all about location. I have AT&T (iPhone) and Verizon (BB Storm), both drop calls, where i have coverage on one, i dont on the other and vice versa. So to say one has better coverage or not, its hard to point in the right direction. Really... As long as i can make a call im good, I had perfect coverage 2 days ago on the Storm and the network wasnt working, while my iPhone had 1 bar on 3G and no issues.
But its a cool commerical, I like how they are only talking about 3G coverage not over all service coverage, kind of makes Verizon look better. Then again...who is struggling for not having the iPhone?
Same with me. its all about location. I have AT&T (iPhone) and Verizon (BB Storm), both drop calls, where i have coverage on one, i dont on the other and vice versa. So to say one has better coverage or not, its hard to point in the right direction. Really... As long as i can make a call im good, I had perfect coverage 2 days ago on the Storm and the network wasnt working, while my iPhone had 1 bar on 3G and no issues.
But its a cool commerical, I like how they are only talking about 3G coverage not over all service coverage, kind of makes Verizon look better. Then again...who is struggling for not having the iPhone?
WeegieMac
Sep 28, 12:24 PM
Nice one, Steve ... he's worked for it.
We're here for a good time, not for a long time.
We're here for a good time, not for a long time.
darh
Sep 12, 08:14 AM
and...i've found this http://www.apple.com/movies
old news:p
old news:p
rdowns
Apr 25, 02:24 PM
Already a thread and still in Current Events.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1141721
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1141721
zooey91
Aug 10, 03:32 PM
Thanks stoid, Just trying to determine when the specs actually changed,
RATHER than when Apple decided to announced the changes.
Must have been before August 7 2006 when they were "updated".
It looks terrific, no problems so far.
Just want to be sure I have the "latest and greatest" right?
I ordered mine on Monday and got it yesterday (ground shipping!). I just got off the phone with tech support (customer service had no clue about the change in specs). He actually had no clue either. He'd never heard of any color or pink cast problems, surprise surprise, and said that that kind of thing is just a matter of opinion. I said that bumping brightness to 400 cd/m2 (up from 270 cd/m2) and contrast ration to 700:1 (up from 400:1) isn't a matter of opinion, so they should have some way of confirming that I received what I paid for.
In any event, he did tell me that mine was manufactured in June (sn 2A6221XXXXX). I would hope and assume that this means it's the newer LCD. It looked great from my powerbook, and I'm looking forward to checking it out with my new Mac Pro when it arrives tomorrow.
Jim
RATHER than when Apple decided to announced the changes.
Must have been before August 7 2006 when they were "updated".
It looks terrific, no problems so far.
Just want to be sure I have the "latest and greatest" right?
I ordered mine on Monday and got it yesterday (ground shipping!). I just got off the phone with tech support (customer service had no clue about the change in specs). He actually had no clue either. He'd never heard of any color or pink cast problems, surprise surprise, and said that that kind of thing is just a matter of opinion. I said that bumping brightness to 400 cd/m2 (up from 270 cd/m2) and contrast ration to 700:1 (up from 400:1) isn't a matter of opinion, so they should have some way of confirming that I received what I paid for.
In any event, he did tell me that mine was manufactured in June (sn 2A6221XXXXX). I would hope and assume that this means it's the newer LCD. It looked great from my powerbook, and I'm looking forward to checking it out with my new Mac Pro when it arrives tomorrow.
Jim
AndyR
Apr 11, 02:41 AM
meet my new desk mascot.
http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/4hmpd9.jpg
it even makes angry bird sounds!!!
want want want want arrrrrrgggghhhhh!!! :d
http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/4hmpd9.jpg
it even makes angry bird sounds!!!
want want want want arrrrrrgggghhhhh!!! :d
ipedro
Sep 25, 11:29 AM
I suppose there could be a bit of news here for non-photographers.
As I understand it, Aperture uses OS X's built-in RAW image processing. If I remember rightly, the last Aperture update accompanied an OS X update. So it's possible 10.4.8 could be just around the corner (i.e. sometime this week?)
It's a Photography show .... It baffles my mind that people make far out unfounded predictions and then are disappointed and curse Apple when they don't come true.
The best example of that was the "One More Thing" event where the iPod Hi-Fi and Intel Mac Mini were shown. This event wasn't meant for the general public, so much that it wasn't broadcast to the public.
Now here's another example which Apple doesn't hype about to the public and "darn, all they do is show an update to a photography pro tool at a photography convention... Apple stock will surely fall with this news"
I for one am real happy with the offline feature. I've been using a workaround to save my giant library off my MacBook Pro. The iLife connectivity and Flickr plugin are also very welcome.
Now I'm just hoping that this version of Aperture is a little snappier because even on a fully loaded MBP, I get beachballs all the time.
As I understand it, Aperture uses OS X's built-in RAW image processing. If I remember rightly, the last Aperture update accompanied an OS X update. So it's possible 10.4.8 could be just around the corner (i.e. sometime this week?)
It's a Photography show .... It baffles my mind that people make far out unfounded predictions and then are disappointed and curse Apple when they don't come true.
The best example of that was the "One More Thing" event where the iPod Hi-Fi and Intel Mac Mini were shown. This event wasn't meant for the general public, so much that it wasn't broadcast to the public.
Now here's another example which Apple doesn't hype about to the public and "darn, all they do is show an update to a photography pro tool at a photography convention... Apple stock will surely fall with this news"
I for one am real happy with the offline feature. I've been using a workaround to save my giant library off my MacBook Pro. The iLife connectivity and Flickr plugin are also very welcome.
Now I'm just hoping that this version of Aperture is a little snappier because even on a fully loaded MBP, I get beachballs all the time.
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.
