Warbrain
Nov 23, 10:22 PM
I guess it's just me, but none of the deals seem to be that great. No store has anything that seems to be getting me all excited, so meh, I guess I can sleep in.
yg17
Mar 3, 09:23 PM
The Tea Party will be kicked out of office just as quickly as they were voted in. Hopefully a Democratic wave will come in 2012 and undo most of this crap.
Winni
May 4, 02:59 AM
Just like communism
Actually, this also includes American Capitalism -- only a fistful of rich people benefit from it at the expense of the rest of the population that has been led to believe by the media that anybody can eventually become rich if they only work hard enough for it, but the truth is that this almost never happens.
Actually, this also includes American Capitalism -- only a fistful of rich people benefit from it at the expense of the rest of the population that has been led to believe by the media that anybody can eventually become rich if they only work hard enough for it, but the truth is that this almost never happens.
stridemat
Apr 21, 01:21 PM
I can see it being more of a hinderance in the main news threads, however for the question threads in the main forum it could be beneficial to highlight the most 'popular' answer.
Cleverboy
Jan 13, 04:12 PM
What I'm wondering is.. if Gizmodo never posted that video, would we have heard about it anyway? As in, would there be news stories saying "Pranksters hit CES hard by turning off displays"
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.Very true. They were so proud, they incriminated themselves, and went so far as to say that Panasonic was "lucky" they didn't have an exposed IR receiver fro their 150 inch display. Wow.
~ CB
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.Very true. They were so proud, they incriminated themselves, and went so far as to say that Panasonic was "lucky" they didn't have an exposed IR receiver fro their 150 inch display. Wow.
~ CB
Quboid
Jan 12, 12:54 AM
Those are not smug, those are facts!
In case you can't tell, I'm serious.
"aint that just cool? cute white text tricks?"
Use the apple dictionary and look up the word fact.:confused:
In case you can't tell, I'm serious.
"aint that just cool? cute white text tricks?"
Use the apple dictionary and look up the word fact.:confused:
glitch44
Nov 24, 01:29 PM
well then i'll go back to sleep...
figuring you only save 1 dollar more on a macbook than you would w/ just an educational discount..i'll get it tomorrow...
oh btw..a hint...if you go to an apple store and buy a giftcard for the amount you need online...then you can use the gift card..get free shipping...plus get your 100 bucks off on a macbook w/ educatoinal discount and have no tax...
so you really end up saving 200 bucks....thats what im doing just a heads up
i'm confused... can you explain? using a gift card gets you free shipping and no tax?
figuring you only save 1 dollar more on a macbook than you would w/ just an educational discount..i'll get it tomorrow...
oh btw..a hint...if you go to an apple store and buy a giftcard for the amount you need online...then you can use the gift card..get free shipping...plus get your 100 bucks off on a macbook w/ educatoinal discount and have no tax...
so you really end up saving 200 bucks....thats what im doing just a heads up
i'm confused... can you explain? using a gift card gets you free shipping and no tax?
MacU
Oct 13, 05:53 PM
I have lived in 4 different rural markets and regularly travel between them. Currently, in NC, Verizon is everywhere since they bought out a couple providers like Rural Cellular and I forget the other one.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I have to agree with you there. I have an iPhone for personal use and a Verison BB for work. My iPhone works around 20% of the time at my house and it drops calls randomly elsewhere. My BB has full bars at home and I have yet to have a dropped call. We need Apple to take care of its customers by opening the market for Verison and TMobile.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I have to agree with you there. I have an iPhone for personal use and a Verison BB for work. My iPhone works around 20% of the time at my house and it drops calls randomly elsewhere. My BB has full bars at home and I have yet to have a dropped call. We need Apple to take care of its customers by opening the market for Verison and TMobile.
mdntcallr
Oct 2, 05:42 PM
well. i wish apple would allow record companies to sell cd's that are copy protected, with copies of songs in AAC fairplay protected. so that people can also use them digitally.
spencers
Apr 8, 02:10 PM
^^ Yup, in the E30! That's why I bought it after all: a cheap(er) easy to fix car that is predictable and balanced at its limit, even though that is relatively low compared to more modern suspension.
Oh darn, no preregister for you? If that didn't happen here, we'd have much too full of a day and less than 14 runs that we usually get. What are you going to bring to your event? Your 325Ci again? I LOVE the E46s....
Just curious though, can you go unstaggered wheel setup with the same size stock rears in the front? That's the only thing I don't care for on the E46.
Yes, my 325Ci. The car came with a square setup. 17x8" :) Guess I'm lucky!
14 runs is a lot!
Oh darn, no preregister for you? If that didn't happen here, we'd have much too full of a day and less than 14 runs that we usually get. What are you going to bring to your event? Your 325Ci again? I LOVE the E46s....
Just curious though, can you go unstaggered wheel setup with the same size stock rears in the front? That's the only thing I don't care for on the E46.
Yes, my 325Ci. The car came with a square setup. 17x8" :) Guess I'm lucky!
14 runs is a lot!
wpotere
Apr 13, 07:25 AM
That again? You do realize that 9/11 had very little to do with airport security but everything to do with incompetence on the side of the secret service and negligence on the side of the US government? TSA has not made airtravel any safer than prior to 9/11.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
Benjy91
Apr 8, 03:11 PM
+1. Hopefully Lion will be worth the added system requirements.
Anyways, he features I've heard that are to new to Windows 8 so far is:
irr Tags: amore, love, sex
amore love. lo faccio per
d#39;Amore - Love Letters)
Technorati Tag: Amore,Love
Pane Bread , Amore Love,
amore.jpg Amore - Love
Amore (Love Is Not Love)
Anyways, he features I've heard that are to new to Windows 8 so far is:
gravytrain84
Mar 17, 11:52 AM
Nope, because I left LSU with my character intact.
u mad?
Me? Mad? Lol
u mad?
Me? Mad? Lol
balamw
Oct 10, 07:15 PM
I think Apple should keep the name "True Video iPod," just as a salute to all the rumor mongering.
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
Do you think it's a coinkidink that the acronym for True Video iPod just so happens to be TVi? TVi, iTV, what's the difference.:p
B
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
Do you think it's a coinkidink that the acronym for True Video iPod just so happens to be TVi? TVi, iTV, what's the difference.:p
B
Slix
Apr 16, 06:38 PM
So you're saying that iTunes is hard to beat?
No way?
No way?
mrsir2009
Apr 24, 03:27 PM
One thing I willask about all of this children/peadophile spin is why are these theoretical parents putting their children at risk giving their children such "connected" devices?
It's simply asking for trouble.
Little children that are at risk to that sort of thing shouldn't have cellphones, let alone iPhones or their own computers :eek:
It's simply asking for trouble.
Little children that are at risk to that sort of thing shouldn't have cellphones, let alone iPhones or their own computers :eek:
rdowns
Apr 26, 09:04 AM
This guy was more than capable of defending himself...
If you have nothing to add to the discussion, don't post. Your act is wearing thin.
If you have nothing to add to the discussion, don't post. Your act is wearing thin.
longsilver
Sep 12, 09:00 AM
All new Macs have DL SD (well, all new Macs with SDs)...
Is that true of the MacBook and the 15.4" MacBook Pro? I thought they didn't have DL.
Is that true of the MacBook and the 15.4" MacBook Pro? I thought they didn't have DL.
NewSc2
Oct 3, 06:08 PM
hi,
The people I have spoken to who use PC's are not nerds or power users, however, they do have monitors that work perfectly fine and want to use them. Why would someone purchase a 20" iMac when they already have sitting on their desk a 12 month old 19" LCD? They may not all need expandability (or really understand what that means) but they are of the mind set that they must have the option. These people are simply not considering Apple computers because of the lack of an upgradeable computer that is under $1500 (the mini is not easily upgradeable unless you happen to be one of those nerds you are refering to). The gap between the mini and the Mac Pro is enormous in both power and price yet there is nothing in the middle price/power range. Simply dismissing this catagory of people will not convince them to buy an iMac. Further, saying the operating system will convince them to switch is a moot point if they never buy the computer in the first place.
My friends, family, and co-workers are all interested in this "OS X thing" but get turned off at the price of the Pro, the lack of power of the mini, and the all in one of the iMac. This is what I am seeing, and Apple is losing sales because of it.
s.
The Mini is pretty powerful. Sorry to discount your argument, but I think that it's more than enough for people out there that aren't power users/computer nerds. Heck, my dad runs engineering software all day long on his Pentium 3 733mhz, 256MB RAM computer and doesn't feel the need to upgrade.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
The people I have spoken to who use PC's are not nerds or power users, however, they do have monitors that work perfectly fine and want to use them. Why would someone purchase a 20" iMac when they already have sitting on their desk a 12 month old 19" LCD? They may not all need expandability (or really understand what that means) but they are of the mind set that they must have the option. These people are simply not considering Apple computers because of the lack of an upgradeable computer that is under $1500 (the mini is not easily upgradeable unless you happen to be one of those nerds you are refering to). The gap between the mini and the Mac Pro is enormous in both power and price yet there is nothing in the middle price/power range. Simply dismissing this catagory of people will not convince them to buy an iMac. Further, saying the operating system will convince them to switch is a moot point if they never buy the computer in the first place.
My friends, family, and co-workers are all interested in this "OS X thing" but get turned off at the price of the Pro, the lack of power of the mini, and the all in one of the iMac. This is what I am seeing, and Apple is losing sales because of it.
s.
The Mini is pretty powerful. Sorry to discount your argument, but I think that it's more than enough for people out there that aren't power users/computer nerds. Heck, my dad runs engineering software all day long on his Pentium 3 733mhz, 256MB RAM computer and doesn't feel the need to upgrade.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
ThE.MeSsEnGeR
Apr 25, 12:00 PM
Looks good, I've been holding out since my first-gen iPhone.
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
he's not the only one still boasting a first-gen iPhone! ;)
I'm still lovin' it!
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
he's not the only one still boasting a first-gen iPhone! ;)
I'm still lovin' it!
lordonuthin
Jul 11, 12:15 PM
well after moving, i finally have my computers setup again. i just got internet access today, but it is looking terribly slow. i just started folding with 4 GPUs for right now. i'll see how this goes before i start with the big units
Good to have you back folding again. We need the points...
Good to have you back folding again. We need the points...
dalvin200
Jan 9, 03:34 PM
I hope apple are giving a massive clue.
On here it says: http://www.apple.com/****/keynote/
9.41 on the ****.
21.41 GMT is in 9 minutes!
lol.. i think the 9:41 was for this morning at tge keynote!!! :p
On here it says: http://www.apple.com/****/keynote/
9.41 on the ****.
21.41 GMT is in 9 minutes!
lol.. i think the 9:41 was for this morning at tge keynote!!! :p
hob
Jan 9, 04:14 PM
Sorry. I put my foot in it. Twice. Please accept my deepest apologies. I really didn't mean to ruin this for anyone. Sorry.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment