krcbkidz
Mar 22, 05:07 PM
You obviously don't know much about samsung. Samsung makes RAM and CPU that apple uses in iphone/ipad. Possibly LCD too. A4 was definitely made by samsung. It's pretty certain A5 is also made by samsung, despite rumors TSMC will make them for apple.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
I know about Samsung & the company's size. Yes, Samsung does manufacture parts for Apple; the parts they manufacture are according to Apple's R&D specifications & are designed by/for Apple only. Apple holds the license for specific parts (ie. the A5/A4 chip designs). Therefore even though Samsung manufactures the parts, they cannot put these parts in other hardware unless deemed so by Apple. Apple pays Samsung a fee to utilize their production facilities, which is a profit for Samsung. This profit is small compared to the margin of parts/production to MSRP that Apple reaps on each iPad. Apple controls hardware development, OS development, & UI development by keeping everything in house. Samsung utilizes a third party OS, & third party processor technology. I don't feel their user experience is as good as it could be. Samsung ultimately controls the manufacturing of the Tab but they leave money on the table as opposed to Apple's business model.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
I know about Samsung & the company's size. Yes, Samsung does manufacture parts for Apple; the parts they manufacture are according to Apple's R&D specifications & are designed by/for Apple only. Apple holds the license for specific parts (ie. the A5/A4 chip designs). Therefore even though Samsung manufactures the parts, they cannot put these parts in other hardware unless deemed so by Apple. Apple pays Samsung a fee to utilize their production facilities, which is a profit for Samsung. This profit is small compared to the margin of parts/production to MSRP that Apple reaps on each iPad. Apple controls hardware development, OS development, & UI development by keeping everything in house. Samsung utilizes a third party OS, & third party processor technology. I don't feel their user experience is as good as it could be. Samsung ultimately controls the manufacturing of the Tab but they leave money on the table as opposed to Apple's business model.
notabadname
Mar 22, 04:06 PM
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
1st point: It's factually inaccurate to make your first statement, as evidenced by your last statement. Kind of funny, don't you think?
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
1st point: It's factually inaccurate to make your first statement, as evidenced by your last statement. Kind of funny, don't you think?
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
tortoise
Aug 22, 05:19 PM
The next Xeon is Clovertown, which is just Woodcrest scaled to 4 cores with a few changes in clock and FSB etc. Tigerton comes next, also 4 cores but MP capable (3+ chips possible) and with a possibility of increased FSB speed, bigger L2 cache and so on.
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
mmmcheese
Sep 13, 09:23 AM
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
Do you mean like how BeOS did things?
Do you mean like how BeOS did things?
TeamMojo
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Good for Apple. Best Buy is downright predatory. They often charge $30 for cables you can by elsewhere for $5 or less. And the whole new Fry's like winding checkout line is so lame. I do like to use Best Buy as an Amazon showroom.
ctachme
Sep 18, 11:07 PM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Mal
Aug 11, 01:40 PM
My bets are that it will be either with Nokia or with HTC.
Nokia make the best phone interfaces in the world, which is a very Apple-like thing to do. They're also very experienced at phone hardware desigh and integrating it smoothly with the interface.
HTC are a taiwan company that design and make the best phone hardware in the world, and then sell them to companies like O2, T-Mobile etc to put their brand on. Most HTC-built phones run Windows Mobile, which Apple may be interested in replaceing with OSX Mobile...
I can quite easily see Apple commisisoning HTC to make a Apple phone, these people are simply the best at hardware phone design and manufacture.
Someone suggested Blackberry, but Blackberry is more geared to corporate use - not a very Apple-like sector - and also are quite heavily dependent on having access to a Windows server to get the most out of your phone.
Overall, I feel it will be HTC and OSX Mobile...
I'll second the HTC vote. The Cingular 8125 (an HTC PDA phone) is an awesome design and a well-built phone. I'd love it if it wasn't Windows Mobile.
jW
Nokia make the best phone interfaces in the world, which is a very Apple-like thing to do. They're also very experienced at phone hardware desigh and integrating it smoothly with the interface.
HTC are a taiwan company that design and make the best phone hardware in the world, and then sell them to companies like O2, T-Mobile etc to put their brand on. Most HTC-built phones run Windows Mobile, which Apple may be interested in replaceing with OSX Mobile...
I can quite easily see Apple commisisoning HTC to make a Apple phone, these people are simply the best at hardware phone design and manufacture.
Someone suggested Blackberry, but Blackberry is more geared to corporate use - not a very Apple-like sector - and also are quite heavily dependent on having access to a Windows server to get the most out of your phone.
Overall, I feel it will be HTC and OSX Mobile...
I'll second the HTC vote. The Cingular 8125 (an HTC PDA phone) is an awesome design and a well-built phone. I'd love it if it wasn't Windows Mobile.
jW
MacsRgr8
Jul 20, 02:28 PM
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
Probably Single CPU bound....
It will be gr8 being able to get 8 cores in a Mac, but if the software dosn't use it....
Someone already mentioned that it also gives you the possibility to use those cores by using many apps at once. This is true, but I wonder how many often you will actually use all those cores at once.
Let's hope the "opposite of Hyperthreading" will come along (Leopard feature???).. So, instead of a "emulating" a Dual Core / CPU config (like on later Pentium 4's), emulate a Single CPU on multiple cores. :cool:
Then, you get 8 * 3 GHz = 1 * 24 GHz...!!!
Probably Single CPU bound....
It will be gr8 being able to get 8 cores in a Mac, but if the software dosn't use it....
Someone already mentioned that it also gives you the possibility to use those cores by using many apps at once. This is true, but I wonder how many often you will actually use all those cores at once.
Let's hope the "opposite of Hyperthreading" will come along (Leopard feature???).. So, instead of a "emulating" a Dual Core / CPU config (like on later Pentium 4's), emulate a Single CPU on multiple cores. :cool:
Then, you get 8 * 3 GHz = 1 * 24 GHz...!!!
akac
Mar 26, 09:40 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
ssk2
Apr 14, 04:20 PM
But the iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone on the market and will continue to be so well past June.
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
LOL. Right.
Opinion is not fact. This works on both sides of the argument, I concede.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
LOL. Right.
Opinion is not fact. This works on both sides of the argument, I concede.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
![john edwards baby. [John Edwards #39;08 Blog]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u7haLzg7-JCe27m8s6pjkZ389PcLh2SrFIPMifYNQpFPBhtAB_2PMahKryXgLihCykF7FkUokp4YSAY3E7Y84Ok8IIvwPmnGJp2kM5o4oRoLpANsViSjEZ=s0-d "[John Edwards #39;08 Blog]")
Multimedia
Aug 17, 03:51 PM
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)
starflyer
Nov 29, 10:40 AM
most of the new stuff out sucks.
I agree. I am SICK AND TIRED of the music industry blaming lack of sales on piracy! Piracy is actually down from what it was a couple years ago but they still claim profits are worse now than ever.
Maybe if they didnt put out the same cookie-cutter bands year after year, album after album, put out albums with 9 good tracks instead on 1 good one with 15 filler pieces of crap sales might improve!
my $0.02
I agree. I am SICK AND TIRED of the music industry blaming lack of sales on piracy! Piracy is actually down from what it was a couple years ago but they still claim profits are worse now than ever.
Maybe if they didnt put out the same cookie-cutter bands year after year, album after album, put out albums with 9 good tracks instead on 1 good one with 15 filler pieces of crap sales might improve!
my $0.02
Ktulu
Aug 25, 08:23 PM
Apple always made the Pismo. I don't know the exact years but it was a black G3 PowerBook.
That's right. thank you I completely forgot about that.:D
That's right. thank you I completely forgot about that.:D
ksz
Jul 14, 11:26 PM
How would you burn two DVDs at once Eldorian? I don't know of any software that lets you do this do you? :confused:
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.
Here (http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=dragonburn/dburn4_main) you go.
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.
Here (http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=dragonburn/dburn4_main) you go.
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.
ChazUK
Apr 20, 11:18 AM
The Galaxy S phone with the closest and most striking resemblance to the iPhone is easily the international i9000 version.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:24 AM
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location.
Yes, but
a) there is a difference between logging where you have been and storing the timestamp of when you have been there, I don't think Apple needs to or should have stored the timestamp
b) restricting the database to all locations you been to in the last seven days greatly diminishes the harm potential
Apple admitted (b), and said they would fix it. They might also fix (a).
Anybody who connects to a WiFi network automatically stores its SSID (unless you tell your iOS device to forget the network every time after your done). This alone is a record of your location (though again, the list of WiFi networks could be stripped of its access date, ie, issue (a)).
Yes, but
a) there is a difference between logging where you have been and storing the timestamp of when you have been there, I don't think Apple needs to or should have stored the timestamp
b) restricting the database to all locations you been to in the last seven days greatly diminishes the harm potential
Apple admitted (b), and said they would fix it. They might also fix (a).
Anybody who connects to a WiFi network automatically stores its SSID (unless you tell your iOS device to forget the network every time after your done). This alone is a record of your location (though again, the list of WiFi networks could be stripped of its access date, ie, issue (a)).
littleman23408
Nov 30, 09:54 PM
Its tough, but i did it. Unless you are going to hit someone you really dont need to slow down for many turns. The buses dont go fast enough for it to be a problem. You can get to 11th at the first turn but cutting in very close to the cone (dont hit it!) and downshifting to slide a little. Sneak into 11th and start drafting the bus in front of you. Theres an easy left where you can pass on the inside and take one more place, then get as close to the tires on the right as possible and you'll be able to grab a few more spots before you hit the 2nd straight.
The next turn is a hard left into an easy 180� right. Be careful on the left as its easy to hit a cone, then cut close to the inside of the right. When you get out of that turn you should be directly behind the blue and teal buses. You wont be able to pass them for a while so draft as best as you can until you get to the hard left at the complete other end of the track. Take that turn really wide and stay to the inside as you exit. You should be able to stay at speed and sneak right by if you are careful enough to not bump into them. If you are too close just back off a little, as long as you pass the blue buses at this turn you are doing great. Just be careful.
The next is a hard left that takes you back to the starting line. If you got ahead of the blue and teal bus there will be a bit of congestion there. Stay close to the inside but be careful you dont hit the grass too much. You should be able to get 5th or 6th before the 2nd lap starts. Follow the same lines as before and watch your corners for a chance to pass on the inside. I got to 1st at the last long straight, but the dark green bus in front is a little violent, so screw the line and do whatever it takes to stay away from him. Take both last lefts carefully and you'll grab first.
Its tough, but possible when you learn the track. I havent tried the Lotus challenge yet because i've been working on licenses, but i assume its roughly the same process just much faster.
Cool thanks. I will give this a try. Anything to get this bus done. I hate the tasks where whatever it is you are driving is real slow!
The next turn is a hard left into an easy 180� right. Be careful on the left as its easy to hit a cone, then cut close to the inside of the right. When you get out of that turn you should be directly behind the blue and teal buses. You wont be able to pass them for a while so draft as best as you can until you get to the hard left at the complete other end of the track. Take that turn really wide and stay to the inside as you exit. You should be able to stay at speed and sneak right by if you are careful enough to not bump into them. If you are too close just back off a little, as long as you pass the blue buses at this turn you are doing great. Just be careful.
The next is a hard left that takes you back to the starting line. If you got ahead of the blue and teal bus there will be a bit of congestion there. Stay close to the inside but be careful you dont hit the grass too much. You should be able to get 5th or 6th before the 2nd lap starts. Follow the same lines as before and watch your corners for a chance to pass on the inside. I got to 1st at the last long straight, but the dark green bus in front is a little violent, so screw the line and do whatever it takes to stay away from him. Take both last lefts carefully and you'll grab first.
Its tough, but possible when you learn the track. I havent tried the Lotus challenge yet because i've been working on licenses, but i assume its roughly the same process just much faster.
Cool thanks. I will give this a try. Anything to get this bus done. I hate the tasks where whatever it is you are driving is real slow!
mmmcheese
Jul 14, 03:37 PM
As usual though they come with 50% of the necessary RAM :rolleyes:, why Apple can't get this right I don't know.
Also I'm surprised the top model doesn't have Intel's fastest chip, surely Apple want to say they have the fastest possible computers?
Dual Optical drives is OK, good if you want to have a blu-ray drive as well I suppose...
1) This is all rumour and speculation...
2) At the price that OEMs charge for memory, less RAM is better. We can fill it with whatever we pick.
Also I'm surprised the top model doesn't have Intel's fastest chip, surely Apple want to say they have the fastest possible computers?
Dual Optical drives is OK, good if you want to have a blu-ray drive as well I suppose...
1) This is all rumour and speculation...
2) At the price that OEMs charge for memory, less RAM is better. We can fill it with whatever we pick.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
tk421
Nov 29, 11:50 AM
I apologize as I have not read through all the comments as yet but if this goes through, how long before we see the request for these types of fees for all PC/Mac sales as those are used to download and listen to music as well?
May as well add the fee to headphones. Don't forget speakers, receivers, cables, speaker wire. And cars, since many people listen to pirated music there. Oh, and add the fee on the monthly electricity bill (can't pirate music without electricity!) and any medical procedure involving the ears or hearing.
May as well add the fee to headphones. Don't forget speakers, receivers, cables, speaker wire. And cars, since many people listen to pirated music there. Oh, and add the fee on the monthly electricity bill (can't pirate music without electricity!) and any medical procedure involving the ears or hearing.
mrkramer
Apr 27, 03:13 PM
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
Of course not, they will find something else to argue about.
Of course not, they will find something else to argue about.
snouter
Apr 6, 11:07 AM
My 17" has backlit keys and I like them. Is that so wrong?
thunng8
Aug 31, 09:15 PM
Check it out!
http://barefeats.com/quad06.html
The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!
It is worth noting that Barefeats has updated their comparison using much more typical photoshop operations:
http://www.barefeats.com/quad11.html
Which shows a much different picture, with the PowerPC models outperforming the MacPro by a significant margin.
http://barefeats.com/quad06.html
The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!
It is worth noting that Barefeats has updated their comparison using much more typical photoshop operations:
http://www.barefeats.com/quad11.html
Which shows a much different picture, with the PowerPC models outperforming the MacPro by a significant margin.
MacRumors
Apr 27, 07:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Apple officially acknowledged (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html) the growing controversy over the logging of location data on the iPhone and iPad. The document comes in a Q&A format. In it, Apple addresses some common concerns and explicitly states that they are not tracking the location of your iPhone, has never done so and has no plans to do so.
The go on to explain the reason for the logging of data:
Why is my iPhone logging my location?
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested. Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites, and even triangulate its location using just Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data when GPS is not available (such as indoors or in basements). These calculations are performed live on the iPhone using a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions of iPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple.Apple states that all data that is transmitted to Apple is anonymous and encrypted and can not be tied to the identity of the user. They also note that findings that the database continues to grow despite Location services being off as a bug that will soon be addressed.
Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Apple officially acknowledged (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html) the growing controversy over the logging of location data on the iPhone and iPad. The document comes in a Q&A format. In it, Apple addresses some common concerns and explicitly states that they are not tracking the location of your iPhone, has never done so and has no plans to do so.
The go on to explain the reason for the logging of data:
Why is my iPhone logging my location?
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested. Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites, and even triangulate its location using just Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data when GPS is not available (such as indoors or in basements). These calculations are performed live on the iPhone using a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions of iPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple.Apple states that all data that is transmitted to Apple is anonymous and encrypted and can not be tied to the identity of the user. They also note that findings that the database continues to grow despite Location services being off as a bug that will soon be addressed.
Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
No comments:
Post a Comment