maclaptop
Apr 16, 06:27 PM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
Disclaimer: I am NOT directing this comment at you Popeye, it's just a comment :)
This crap about the only apps that don't get approved is a bunch of BS.
Steve Jobs wants you (using the word "you" generically) to believe this load of cow dung.
The truth is, that the only apps approved are the ones that have been looked at with a magnifying glass to be sure there isn't anything that Apple does not like. They make all decisions for their users (which includes me).
So... I'm not bashing Apple, I'm a huge Apple customer of many years and have spent tens of thousands of dollars with them.
I know Apple well and I am simply sharing my viewpoint.
That's it. Nothing sinister on my part.
I neither love them or hate them. It is what it is.
Disclaimer: I am NOT directing this comment at you Popeye, it's just a comment :)
This crap about the only apps that don't get approved is a bunch of BS.
Steve Jobs wants you (using the word "you" generically) to believe this load of cow dung.
The truth is, that the only apps approved are the ones that have been looked at with a magnifying glass to be sure there isn't anything that Apple does not like. They make all decisions for their users (which includes me).
So... I'm not bashing Apple, I'm a huge Apple customer of many years and have spent tens of thousands of dollars with them.
I know Apple well and I am simply sharing my viewpoint.
That's it. Nothing sinister on my part.
I neither love them or hate them. It is what it is.
taeclee99
Sep 7, 09:41 PM
Kanye West does not care about mac people.
Al Coholic
Mar 28, 02:46 PM
The people have already voted...
It's called the "Top Grossing" category.
It's called the "Top Grossing" category.
7o7munoz7o7
May 3, 02:11 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
why are you on macrumors.....you have something to do with Android to....practice what you...ah you know the rest
Does it really matter what the competition does.
why are you on macrumors.....you have something to do with Android to....practice what you...ah you know the rest
more...
JeffDM
Oct 3, 11:11 AM
When will this hacking nerd do something REALLY positive and productive to the world?
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
It's currently the only way to get non-Disney movies onto an iPod and many other similar devices. It's also a way for users to get the videos they've paid for onto media devices that don't have a DVD drive. For the movie industry to say that they have to buy the movie again is completely ludicrous on their part.
His work allowed people to use the media and devices they paid for in the way that they want to use it. I would call that productive.
I know you probably don't agree with it but frankly, I think the movie industry is being too greedy here.
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
DVDJon is in the EU, which I don't think has such a law yet. The DMCA only applies to the US. Counterpart laws are in the works.
There might be some trouble if he decides to come to the US. Adobe had some Russian guy arrested when he came to the US for making a program that applied ROT13 to Adobe's "encrypted" files to make them useable.
He's just another guy trying to make a quick buck...
I think that's a bit of an ignorant comment. It's taken him long enough to get around to doing so, so I don't think "quick" applies. He's been breaking encryption systems for maybe ten years now, I'm not sure if he's made any money on it so far.
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
I doubt that licencing the format would have to mean that it allows competing players. The licensing contracts can be very specific such that it allows only encryptors, not decryptors, and be limited to certain circumstances.
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
It's currently the only way to get non-Disney movies onto an iPod and many other similar devices. It's also a way for users to get the videos they've paid for onto media devices that don't have a DVD drive. For the movie industry to say that they have to buy the movie again is completely ludicrous on their part.
His work allowed people to use the media and devices they paid for in the way that they want to use it. I would call that productive.
I know you probably don't agree with it but frankly, I think the movie industry is being too greedy here.
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
DVDJon is in the EU, which I don't think has such a law yet. The DMCA only applies to the US. Counterpart laws are in the works.
There might be some trouble if he decides to come to the US. Adobe had some Russian guy arrested when he came to the US for making a program that applied ROT13 to Adobe's "encrypted" files to make them useable.
He's just another guy trying to make a quick buck...
I think that's a bit of an ignorant comment. It's taken him long enough to get around to doing so, so I don't think "quick" applies. He's been breaking encryption systems for maybe ten years now, I'm not sure if he's made any money on it so far.
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
I doubt that licencing the format would have to mean that it allows competing players. The licensing contracts can be very specific such that it allows only encryptors, not decryptors, and be limited to certain circumstances.
Cinch
Oct 10, 09:15 PM
I think this a typical engineer/geek/nerd wet dream. I also think the current iPod is too big for the gym (I use the Nano). Watching TV shows or movies on the iPod doesn't appeal to me. Imagine watch a TV show on a screen a little bit bigger than a business card, fabulous, good times!
An iPod that plays Movies and TV shows on a bigger screen like your TV sounds more plausible. But think how complicated this scenario is. Lets keep it simple, lets watch TV shows on our TV beam via cable/satellite. If you have to make a decision to download TV shows (note the one that you like and ignoring the rest) then download it to your TV then simplicity is lost. The product i.e. video iPod is dead on arrival.
Cinch
An iPod that plays Movies and TV shows on a bigger screen like your TV sounds more plausible. But think how complicated this scenario is. Lets keep it simple, lets watch TV shows on our TV beam via cable/satellite. If you have to make a decision to download TV shows (note the one that you like and ignoring the rest) then download it to your TV then simplicity is lost. The product i.e. video iPod is dead on arrival.
Cinch
more...
al85
Sep 12, 10:57 AM
Even if the video ipod is released, whats the chance it will let u just drag and drop files into it e.g .avi.
applemumba
Apr 15, 05:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
They fake! The next iPhone will be the same as the 3gs just in all the colours apple knows best. Give choice people will upgrade and buy more. They proved it with the iPods time and time again why not the iPhone too.
They fake! The next iPhone will be the same as the 3gs just in all the colours apple knows best. Give choice people will upgrade and buy more. They proved it with the iPods time and time again why not the iPhone too.
more...
Aniej
Jan 5, 11:24 AM
And there you go!
diamornte
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
The 4s will be a 4 with the 3.7 screen, and a A5 chip. That is it. Period.
How can you be so certain of this as to say "That is it. Period."? Sources plz?
How can you be so certain of this as to say "That is it. Period."? Sources plz?
more...
WestonHarvey1
Apr 29, 02:43 PM
Thank you for reminding me of that analogy. It really is a good one, and your points are excellent. Nobody complains when pickup trucks and tractors get cushy seats and high-end sound systems, but add an app store to OS X and people are ready to jump to Windows! Silly.
That is an excellent add-on to the truck analogy!
That is an excellent add-on to the truck analogy!
RebootD
Apr 8, 01:29 PM
More sensationalist "reporting" from another tech blog. Best Buy has been known for holding hot items (game consoles, etc.) for Sunday flyer promotions, for years. It was obvious that was what was going on here.
But no, Tech-Crunch-Gear-Whatever has to drag Apple, even Tim Cook into it. What a bunch of gossip rags... it's embarrassing.:eek:
And fake outrage from the people here :rolleyes:
They are a store and can do as they please with their inventory. If they want to keep 20 of them locked in a sealed vault they can for as long as they want.
It only gets into the "wrong" territory if they held back stock and then charged more than MSRP creating a fake supply shortage to boost prices.
But no, Tech-Crunch-Gear-Whatever has to drag Apple, even Tim Cook into it. What a bunch of gossip rags... it's embarrassing.:eek:
And fake outrage from the people here :rolleyes:
They are a store and can do as they please with their inventory. If they want to keep 20 of them locked in a sealed vault they can for as long as they want.
It only gets into the "wrong" territory if they held back stock and then charged more than MSRP creating a fake supply shortage to boost prices.
more...
dmr727
Jan 15, 01:17 PM
I liked it. I was happy with the update to the AppleTV - I think I'll finally get off the fence and buy one. The Capsule seems interesting. The MBA is outside of what I want to spend, but it's pretty awesome nonetheless.
It would have been nice to see updated specs on the Mini and other notebooks, but hey, you can't have everything! :)
It would have been nice to see updated specs on the Mini and other notebooks, but hey, you can't have everything! :)
iJaz
Oct 11, 06:07 AM
It may kill the first iteration of the Zune, but MS has stated it�s a multiple years effort � they acknowledge it�s going to be hard to beat the iPod bastion, and if at all possible it will take time. But, I suspect Apple have plenty of different prototypes in their labs, ready to be launched to complement new market demands.
I sure hope that Apple will keep Zune and MS will one step behind, they really should be able to.
I sure hope that Apple will keep Zune and MS will one step behind, they really should be able to.
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 06:53 PM
everybody is giving his point of view about why or why not Pro developers should help new ones.)
No one has given a point of view about that. You quite misunderstand what everyone is saying.
As for your code, you still have not really given us a clear indication of at what stage you are now and what isn't working. Now we know you want to do a sort of count down timer. I'm guessing you're trying to make a cooking timer kind of app since you said you were a pastry chef and that was what your first app was based on. Is this correct ? (<-- not a quiz question).
Now, what is not working ? Is the timer getting created ? Is it calling the method identified by the target and selector attributes when the interval you specified ends ? Is it repeating or not repeating (depending on how you set the repeat parameter on it) ?
When a timer repeats, it will simply call back the selector in the target specified.
Does your button that "cancels" it call your cancel method ? What have you done to check this ?
With the little code you posted, and since you haven't provided screenshots of your associations in Interface Builder, these are all pending questions we have that are preventing us from helping you thoroughly. This is not a quiz, these are things we need to know to help you.
So, self refers to my controller.. interesting.
No, self refers to the instance of the object that is executing the currently running code. It is highly context dependant.
Inside a method of your view controller, yes, self refers to your view controller. Inside a method in your view object, self refers to the view object. Inside the NSTimer object, self refers to the NSTimer.
No one has given a point of view about that. You quite misunderstand what everyone is saying.
As for your code, you still have not really given us a clear indication of at what stage you are now and what isn't working. Now we know you want to do a sort of count down timer. I'm guessing you're trying to make a cooking timer kind of app since you said you were a pastry chef and that was what your first app was based on. Is this correct ? (<-- not a quiz question).
Now, what is not working ? Is the timer getting created ? Is it calling the method identified by the target and selector attributes when the interval you specified ends ? Is it repeating or not repeating (depending on how you set the repeat parameter on it) ?
When a timer repeats, it will simply call back the selector in the target specified.
Does your button that "cancels" it call your cancel method ? What have you done to check this ?
With the little code you posted, and since you haven't provided screenshots of your associations in Interface Builder, these are all pending questions we have that are preventing us from helping you thoroughly. This is not a quiz, these are things we need to know to help you.
So, self refers to my controller.. interesting.
No, self refers to the instance of the object that is executing the currently running code. It is highly context dependant.
Inside a method of your view controller, yes, self refers to your view controller. Inside a method in your view object, self refers to the view object. Inside the NSTimer object, self refers to the NSTimer.
pink-pony115
Oct 3, 04:53 PM
I wouldn't care to see more of iTv...but my cards are rested in Steve going in dept of the iTv :o
I don't care about the iPhone or the "true" video ipod...they are just some old rumors.
....crafty though
I don't care about the iPhone or the "true" video ipod...they are just some old rumors.
....crafty though
more...
menlotechnical
Apr 23, 11:26 AM
OK, like any topic we should all be on the common ground about what we are talking about. Some guys pulled together this discussion about finding hidden tracking information.
The video is fairly short, but worth a watch just to speak somewhat intelligently on this issue:
http://mashable.com/2011/04/20/iphone-location-history/
The crazy part is, you have to keep in mind the ignorance of all the media people, all the 'journalists' all the comments on places like the Wall Street Journal. These people thrive on conspiracy and almost go out of their way to never get facts to talk about an issue.
After listening to this video I realize that these two have no idea what they are doing, while claiming that they have discovered something dramatic and private, they have only found that the LOCAL iPhone backup contains a database file that stores long lat information with time stamps, as well as country codes and area codes. Kind of like a call history you find in ALL cell phones. Additionally, the cell phone works by tracking it's relative positioning based on communications with cell towers. So the info they found was just the mechanics of cell phone and GPS technology. Yes, the phone keeps track of where you have been physically in relation to those towers. Probably moreso a mix of reliability for service - caching local locations and speeding up the ability for the device to switch from tower to tower. These boys also bring up the fact that every device has a unique ID as well as every tower! Wow. The next discovery they may make will be the fundamentals of ip v4 addressing and the TCP/IP stack (can't wait!!)
Seriously, watch that video and give us your impressions of what these two brains figured out.
Also, how come no one is talking about FB invasion.. which is really the whole sale invasion of privacy and selling your information - a practice stolen directly from credit card companies. Banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms, and credit card reporting companies spend more time and make more money without consent than any other industry. Even cell phone providers.
These boys wind up their discussion saying they really are not sure what this location information means, and that it remains in the iphone owners hands, and they cannot prove that it EVER leaves the phone, nor the PC. It is an ever growing file, which just is not practical for Apple to track of and constantly send to their offices. Probably, Facebook and 4square collect more information than Apple from any one iPhone.
Here is an excellent rebuttal that explains technical detail why these two are wrong:
Lauren Conrad 2010.
Lauren Conrad
The video is fairly short, but worth a watch just to speak somewhat intelligently on this issue:
http://mashable.com/2011/04/20/iphone-location-history/
The crazy part is, you have to keep in mind the ignorance of all the media people, all the 'journalists' all the comments on places like the Wall Street Journal. These people thrive on conspiracy and almost go out of their way to never get facts to talk about an issue.
After listening to this video I realize that these two have no idea what they are doing, while claiming that they have discovered something dramatic and private, they have only found that the LOCAL iPhone backup contains a database file that stores long lat information with time stamps, as well as country codes and area codes. Kind of like a call history you find in ALL cell phones. Additionally, the cell phone works by tracking it's relative positioning based on communications with cell towers. So the info they found was just the mechanics of cell phone and GPS technology. Yes, the phone keeps track of where you have been physically in relation to those towers. Probably moreso a mix of reliability for service - caching local locations and speeding up the ability for the device to switch from tower to tower. These boys also bring up the fact that every device has a unique ID as well as every tower! Wow. The next discovery they may make will be the fundamentals of ip v4 addressing and the TCP/IP stack (can't wait!!)
Seriously, watch that video and give us your impressions of what these two brains figured out.
Also, how come no one is talking about FB invasion.. which is really the whole sale invasion of privacy and selling your information - a practice stolen directly from credit card companies. Banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms, and credit card reporting companies spend more time and make more money without consent than any other industry. Even cell phone providers.
These boys wind up their discussion saying they really are not sure what this location information means, and that it remains in the iphone owners hands, and they cannot prove that it EVER leaves the phone, nor the PC. It is an ever growing file, which just is not practical for Apple to track of and constantly send to their offices. Probably, Facebook and 4square collect more information than Apple from any one iPhone.
Here is an excellent rebuttal that explains technical detail why these two are wrong:
abrooks
Nov 23, 05:44 PM
Think Secret (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0611blackfridaynote.shtml) appears to disagree, but I'm sure they just made it up :rolleyes:
stefan15
Jul 24, 11:41 AM
[--micropod image--]
OMG almost killed myself laughing
OMG almost killed myself laughing
MagnusVonMagnum
May 2, 04:02 PM
Actually 10 comes after 9.
You obviously missed the irony of it all (and yes, OSX is around 10 years old now). Windows was never called "1, 2, 3" etc. so there's more irony for OSX which did takes 10 years to get where it is now (i.e that's how long they've been working on OSX; OS9 has NOTHING to do with the length of time they've spent on the current OS, which has little or nothing to do with OS9 technologically other than the similarity in GUI interface (save the overlap in Carbon libraries). OSX is based on NeXTStep, itself based on Unix. It's not based on Mac Classic OS 1-9. But then my ;) should have clued you in. But then Windows haters rarely get such humor, IMO.
You obviously missed the irony of it all (and yes, OSX is around 10 years old now). Windows was never called "1, 2, 3" etc. so there's more irony for OSX which did takes 10 years to get where it is now (i.e that's how long they've been working on OSX; OS9 has NOTHING to do with the length of time they've spent on the current OS, which has little or nothing to do with OS9 technologically other than the similarity in GUI interface (save the overlap in Carbon libraries). OSX is based on NeXTStep, itself based on Unix. It's not based on Mac Classic OS 1-9. But then my ;) should have clued you in. But then Windows haters rarely get such humor, IMO.
mantan
Apr 15, 08:59 PM
and FAIL.
iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!
they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.
I have to disagree a bit. Competition drives innovation, even at Apple. They are great at creating new products....but they need a little prod now and again. We would have continued to get incremental updates like the 3GS (where a compass was touted as a major new feature) if the Android didn't close the gap. The result, an iPhone 4 that was a major leap.
We all accept paying $150 for a Nano when Sansa was selling high quality MP3 players at a third of that 5 years ago.
Competition is good for the consumer. It results in innovation and downward pressure on prices.
iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!
they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.
I have to disagree a bit. Competition drives innovation, even at Apple. They are great at creating new products....but they need a little prod now and again. We would have continued to get incremental updates like the 3GS (where a compass was touted as a major new feature) if the Android didn't close the gap. The result, an iPhone 4 that was a major leap.
We all accept paying $150 for a Nano when Sansa was selling high quality MP3 players at a third of that 5 years ago.
Competition is good for the consumer. It results in innovation and downward pressure on prices.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 1, 10:41 AM
How can a Norwegian law affect Denmark like this?:confused:Gjennom EØS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area)-avtalen... :(
NAG
Mar 24, 03:26 PM
I remember using the prerelease versions without an Apple menu (and a decorative Apple in the center).
Oh, and does anyone remember Docklings?
Oh, and does anyone remember Docklings?
No comments:
Post a Comment