maclaptop
Apr 29, 07:58 PM
Apple has sprung open a box of snakes.
Mixing elements of iOS & OS X, is a no win proposition. It's the golly gee whiz kids, vs. the professionals.
The kids love the look of iOS, FART Apps, and all that nonsense. Its all fun & games on mommy & daddies money.
The grown ups who use their Macs to get things done, find some of these changes far from amusing. For us its about productivity & efficiency. It's about computing.
Mixing elements of iOS & OS X, is a no win proposition. It's the golly gee whiz kids, vs. the professionals.
The kids love the look of iOS, FART Apps, and all that nonsense. Its all fun & games on mommy & daddies money.
The grown ups who use their Macs to get things done, find some of these changes far from amusing. For us its about productivity & efficiency. It's about computing.
KnightWRX
Apr 29, 04:51 PM
major kernel version
1,2: 1.0 and 2.0
3: 3.0, WfW3.11, NT 3.51
4: 95, 98, NT4
5: 2000, XP
6: Vista
7: Windows 7 (but really 6.1):confused:
So the answer is, "marketing"
You're mixing up your kernels. NT 4.0 doesn't share a kernel with 95/98, NT 3.51 doesn't share a kernel with Windows 3.x...
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
1,2: 1.0 and 2.0
3: 3.0, WfW3.11, NT 3.51
4: 95, 98, NT4
5: 2000, XP
6: Vista
7: Windows 7 (but really 6.1):confused:
So the answer is, "marketing"
You're mixing up your kernels. NT 4.0 doesn't share a kernel with 95/98, NT 3.51 doesn't share a kernel with Windows 3.x...
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
DeSnousa
Apr 26, 07:24 AM
Oh sounds very exciting! Can't wait, hoping it word fine :D
Corndog5595
Dec 4, 08:02 PM
My list of maps and how much I like them on a scale of one to five:
is greek artemis,god
artemis greek goddess cartoon.
artemis greek goddess
artemis greek goddess cartoon. artemis greek goddess of
artemis greek goddess cartoon.
artemis greek goddess cartoon. At artemis, question what
1893 Print Artemis Statue
artemis greek goddess symbols.
artemis greek goddess symbols.
artemis greek goddess of
artemis greek goddess cartoon.
artemis greek goddess cartoon. Of greece zeus greek Join
artemis greek goddess cartoon. ARTEMIS: Wild Goddess; ARTEMIS: Wild Goddess. bmorris. Jan 14, 08:32 PM. i feel bad for the motorola guy.
kresh
Oct 28, 07:23 PM
I don't think there are many out there who think all software should be free. I think these OSS advocates just want as much free stuff as possible, for many reasons.
People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.
That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."
Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.
That's just rationalization and obfuscation. Apple is not using anything outside of licensing stipulations. The GUI belongs to Apple. They are not giving OSx86 a license to Aqua thus it is theft.
That fact just can't be gotten around.
And to all those who seem to believe that Apple just has to open OSX up to run on any hardware or they will be doomed, you are ignoring history.
Apple wen't down the road of the clones and it damn near put them out of business. It would be sheer stupidity to go down that road again and expect a different result.
If Apple opens OSX to any hardware, just how will they compete? They could not compete against the cloners because they were smaller and could adapt new hardware alot more quickly.
Apple would quickly see their hardware sales dry up, those sales lost to the Dells, Acers, HP, and the whole litanany of bargin basement hardware assemblers.
If you really think Apple can't survive unless they open up OSX, explain how they would compete and win, don't just make a broad unsubstantiated demand that they open it up.
And who cares about marketshare anyway? 80% of the market is made up of almost zero margin hardware sales, how much of that does Apple really want.
/end rant
People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.
That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."
Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.
That's just rationalization and obfuscation. Apple is not using anything outside of licensing stipulations. The GUI belongs to Apple. They are not giving OSx86 a license to Aqua thus it is theft.
That fact just can't be gotten around.
And to all those who seem to believe that Apple just has to open OSX up to run on any hardware or they will be doomed, you are ignoring history.
Apple wen't down the road of the clones and it damn near put them out of business. It would be sheer stupidity to go down that road again and expect a different result.
If Apple opens OSX to any hardware, just how will they compete? They could not compete against the cloners because they were smaller and could adapt new hardware alot more quickly.
Apple would quickly see their hardware sales dry up, those sales lost to the Dells, Acers, HP, and the whole litanany of bargin basement hardware assemblers.
If you really think Apple can't survive unless they open up OSX, explain how they would compete and win, don't just make a broad unsubstantiated demand that they open it up.
And who cares about marketshare anyway? 80% of the market is made up of almost zero margin hardware sales, how much of that does Apple really want.
/end rant
Alaerian
Mar 17, 01:39 AM
Some people on these forums have consciences. Apparently you do not.
I hope the karma carousel comes full circle.
I hope the karma carousel comes full circle.
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:08 PM
mine just says connecting
citizenzen
Apr 22, 10:00 AM
... teach our kids why rome fell ...
You mean because they passed laws against homosexuality?
While I find that a little simplistic, if you really want to run with that theory that's your choice.
Homosexuality in ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome features dispassionately in many literary works, poems, graffiti and in comments, for example, on the sexual predilections of single emperors: Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct". Surviving graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over time ranging from the matter-of-fact acceptance of Republican Rome and the pagan Empire to rising condemnation, exampled by the Athenian Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome— and in Athens, too!— and Cyprian.
The term homosexuality is anachronistic for the ancient world, since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality, nor was there any sense that a man was defined by his gender choices in love-making; "in the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use", James Boswell has noted.
...
Later Empire
The rise of statutes legislating against homosexuality begins during the social crisis of the 3rd century, when a series of laws were promulgated regulating various aspects of homosexual relations, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriages. By the sixth century homosexual relations were expressly prohibited for the first time, as Procopius notes.
On a related note, a search of the string "homo" in the article The Decline of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_rome) comes up with zero results.
You gotta do better than that bassfingers. :rolleyes:
You mean because they passed laws against homosexuality?
While I find that a little simplistic, if you really want to run with that theory that's your choice.
Homosexuality in ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome features dispassionately in many literary works, poems, graffiti and in comments, for example, on the sexual predilections of single emperors: Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct". Surviving graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over time ranging from the matter-of-fact acceptance of Republican Rome and the pagan Empire to rising condemnation, exampled by the Athenian Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome— and in Athens, too!— and Cyprian.
The term homosexuality is anachronistic for the ancient world, since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality, nor was there any sense that a man was defined by his gender choices in love-making; "in the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use", James Boswell has noted.
...
Later Empire
The rise of statutes legislating against homosexuality begins during the social crisis of the 3rd century, when a series of laws were promulgated regulating various aspects of homosexual relations, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriages. By the sixth century homosexual relations were expressly prohibited for the first time, as Procopius notes.
On a related note, a search of the string "homo" in the article The Decline of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_rome) comes up with zero results.
You gotta do better than that bassfingers. :rolleyes:
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 12, 07:26 AM
God. I m finding it harder and harder to concentrate on work. I wish I didnt have this MB sitting in my office:eek: :eek: :o
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
mattwolfmatt
Sep 28, 04:57 PM
If this is the iPhone of houses, I guess my house is the Zune of houses. Or perhaps a 1st Gen nano . . . old, small, and ugly.
mcrain
Apr 26, 09:29 AM
It wasn't a skeevy guy, not even remotely.
She was in the right restroom, there is a good option, for her to use the loo appropriate to her gender, female.
I know it wasn't a skeevy guy. What I also know is that transgendered people have to deal with all sorts of problems, including what restroom to use. A transgendered woman going into a women's room should not be treated like a skeevy guy going into a restroom, but it happens. I've seen it happen. I pointed out the comparison to spark a conversation, not to say it's right, but to say the comparison is often made. Either there is a failure of education and tolerance, or some accomodation needst to be made, or maybe security should be better, or something...
Oh, and there are too many people who make unfounded assumptions. This story is proof of that.
Out of curiosity, do you actually know what gender she was? Was she post-op? Pre-op? Does it matter? I think a woman sitting in a stall might freak out by someone peeing upright next to them.
You would think that; however one could argue that black Americans don't repay the goodwill done towards their causes by standing up for other minorities. In fact, you could say that they do the opposite and use other minorities as scape goats for their problems. You could say that but then everyone would just call you a racist.
Yes, they might.
I usually like your posts on here but this one is really coming off as transphobic and frankly makes me really sad to read.
I really did try to avoid making it sound that way, because that was not my intention. I apologize to anyone who was offended by how I worded that post.
She was in the right restroom, there is a good option, for her to use the loo appropriate to her gender, female.
I know it wasn't a skeevy guy. What I also know is that transgendered people have to deal with all sorts of problems, including what restroom to use. A transgendered woman going into a women's room should not be treated like a skeevy guy going into a restroom, but it happens. I've seen it happen. I pointed out the comparison to spark a conversation, not to say it's right, but to say the comparison is often made. Either there is a failure of education and tolerance, or some accomodation needst to be made, or maybe security should be better, or something...
Oh, and there are too many people who make unfounded assumptions. This story is proof of that.
Out of curiosity, do you actually know what gender she was? Was she post-op? Pre-op? Does it matter? I think a woman sitting in a stall might freak out by someone peeing upright next to them.
You would think that; however one could argue that black Americans don't repay the goodwill done towards their causes by standing up for other minorities. In fact, you could say that they do the opposite and use other minorities as scape goats for their problems. You could say that but then everyone would just call you a racist.
Yes, they might.
I usually like your posts on here but this one is really coming off as transphobic and frankly makes me really sad to read.
I really did try to avoid making it sound that way, because that was not my intention. I apologize to anyone who was offended by how I worded that post.
Rookies1000
Mar 17, 07:36 AM
That's pretty low and the need to come here and brag about it. Great if you can live with yourself, I couldnt
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:29 PM
i was whatching it and it ****ed up in the middle
wildmac
Oct 2, 03:46 PM
You'd expect Jobs would have some sympathy for the guy, what with his phreaking days before Apple.
No honor among theives... :cool:
No honor among theives... :cool:
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:28 PM
I'd say that's pretty plausible.
I agree, you're good!
I agree, you're good!
840quadra
Sep 12, 10:11 AM
Minimal impact, or importance, but interesting..
http://images.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc06/images/sjwwdc.jpg
artemis greek goddess cartoon.
Greek goddess pictures
http://images.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc06/images/sjwwdc.jpg
paulrbeers
Mar 17, 08:45 AM
OMG you people are completely overreacting. Do you know how often cashiers make mistakes such as this? If every store fired every cashier that came up short on their register at least once in their retail career, their would probably no cashiers. It's a common mistake that happens more often than you think and most stores just take it as a lost and go about business as usual. So, unless the cashier is completely incompetent and this incident is a repeat occurrence, I doubt he'll get fired.
Bull. I had a girlfriend in high school get fired from OfficeMax for being $100 off where she had been working for almost a year. Unfortunately some guy came in that day, paid for two computers and a printer with $100 bills (total was something like $2500, as this was the late 90's). She counted it twice, but apparently one was missed. Corporate policy stated that she could only be off by less than $5 at the end of her shift.
She didn't pocket the money and her manager knew that she didn't, but she still lost her job. Company policy.
Would I like to get an iPad for half price? Absolutely, but ONLY if it was because the company was selling it for half price. I pay what I am supposed to pay.
Bull. I had a girlfriend in high school get fired from OfficeMax for being $100 off where she had been working for almost a year. Unfortunately some guy came in that day, paid for two computers and a printer with $100 bills (total was something like $2500, as this was the late 90's). She counted it twice, but apparently one was missed. Corporate policy stated that she could only be off by less than $5 at the end of her shift.
She didn't pocket the money and her manager knew that she didn't, but she still lost her job. Company policy.
Would I like to get an iPad for half price? Absolutely, but ONLY if it was because the company was selling it for half price. I pay what I am supposed to pay.
mcmadhatter
Oct 17, 09:46 AM
I'm not sure about what you're saying here, because content producers will still be having to supply the same film in two different formats.
No they won't they can produce their film in whatever format they like because all players would be dual format so it wouldn't matter, they wouldn't even need those fancy hybrid discs
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner. This could happen though it is unlikely with dual format drives
DVD +/- is a writing thing. It's not the same, because people don't care where they get their blank discs from as much.
When it was going on it was a big thing, because a lot of dvd Players would only Play one type of disc so if you recorded to + and your friend had - they would not be able to play it
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
I do , I have 140Gb of Photos from my DSLR (and previous digital cameras) putting this on 3 discs rather than 40 discs would be great
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
External drives are very easy to break beyond repair with osx (3 different NEW external drives, 3 different disk manufacturers disks, and the longest they lasted without dying so badly they needed an RMA was 72 hours) and dvd blueray etc discs take up less space, and you have the possibility of having 3-4 copies.
No they won't they can produce their film in whatever format they like because all players would be dual format so it wouldn't matter, they wouldn't even need those fancy hybrid discs
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner. This could happen though it is unlikely with dual format drives
DVD +/- is a writing thing. It's not the same, because people don't care where they get their blank discs from as much.
When it was going on it was a big thing, because a lot of dvd Players would only Play one type of disc so if you recorded to + and your friend had - they would not be able to play it
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
I do , I have 140Gb of Photos from my DSLR (and previous digital cameras) putting this on 3 discs rather than 40 discs would be great
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
External drives are very easy to break beyond repair with osx (3 different NEW external drives, 3 different disk manufacturers disks, and the longest they lasted without dying so badly they needed an RMA was 72 hours) and dvd blueray etc discs take up less space, and you have the possibility of having 3-4 copies.
Simmias
May 3, 10:37 PM
I love my iPad 2, but I don't care for the ads. I like the overall message, but the narrator's inflections really bug me for some reason - a little too sappy. Also, the use of the word "magic" (wink, wink) in this ad and the previous one smacks of Steve Jobs thumbing his nose at critics. No matter how successful the iPad is, we will still cringe at his calling it magical.
NebulaClash
May 3, 10:36 PM
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
Agreed, and it is the big long-term mistake Android marketers are making. When you appeal to young males in your ads, while repelling everyone else, you limit your product's long-term appeal. Gadget blogs don't see the problem because they are mostly young males.
Apple ads appeal to everyone the way traditional Coke or McDonalds ads did and often still do.
Agreed, and it is the big long-term mistake Android marketers are making. When you appeal to young males in your ads, while repelling everyone else, you limit your product's long-term appeal. Gadget blogs don't see the problem because they are mostly young males.
Apple ads appeal to everyone the way traditional Coke or McDonalds ads did and often still do.
Cutwolf
Mar 17, 11:37 AM
So either this guy is a troll, which is against the TOS, and he should be banned.
Or he's advocating breaking the law, which is (presumably) against the TOS, and he should be banned.
Go go gadget mods!
bunch of haters. In a society where our own government is the biggest crook of all , you all have the nerve to jump down this guy's throat because of someone else's mistake!?!?
"In a society where the government is the biggest crook of all (and not to mention mind controls us through iPads which are embedded with the latest mind control tech), why would anyone get mad at someone for being a crook?!"
Sensical and logical. I am in love with you.
Plus, if you have ever been to a best buy, employees jump on and off registers all the time without logging off first. They will never know which employee did it.
That makes it ok?
also consider that this was this guy's karma coming back to him. He did good and now he is getting rewarded.
There are no rules to karma, obviously, but I don't think anyone would say that a burglar who breaks into a house and doesn't get caught was being rewarded for something he did previously. This is similar, albeit on a smaller scale.
Plus if this cashier is dumb enough to mistake $230 for $500 plus tax then does Best Buy really want him working register and relying on customer honesty to save his job?
Which is more ethical and legal -- ignoring the mistake because it worked out in your benefit, or correcting his mistake and then simply letting a manager know about the mistake the cashier made?
Or he's advocating breaking the law, which is (presumably) against the TOS, and he should be banned.
Go go gadget mods!
bunch of haters. In a society where our own government is the biggest crook of all , you all have the nerve to jump down this guy's throat because of someone else's mistake!?!?
"In a society where the government is the biggest crook of all (and not to mention mind controls us through iPads which are embedded with the latest mind control tech), why would anyone get mad at someone for being a crook?!"
Sensical and logical. I am in love with you.
Plus, if you have ever been to a best buy, employees jump on and off registers all the time without logging off first. They will never know which employee did it.
That makes it ok?
also consider that this was this guy's karma coming back to him. He did good and now he is getting rewarded.
There are no rules to karma, obviously, but I don't think anyone would say that a burglar who breaks into a house and doesn't get caught was being rewarded for something he did previously. This is similar, albeit on a smaller scale.
Plus if this cashier is dumb enough to mistake $230 for $500 plus tax then does Best Buy really want him working register and relying on customer honesty to save his job?
Which is more ethical and legal -- ignoring the mistake because it worked out in your benefit, or correcting his mistake and then simply letting a manager know about the mistake the cashier made?
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
Macxor
Apr 29, 04:06 PM
me too
+1
+1
No comments:
Post a Comment