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.
lsvtecjohn3
Mar 22, 02:09 PM
Lack of Flash support is the achilles heel of iPad. I hope Jobs gets off his high horse and relents.
He's not because of the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch they're pushing HTML5 forward
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/54-of-h-264-web-video-now-available-in-html5/
He's not because of the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch they're pushing HTML5 forward
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/54-of-h-264-web-video-now-available-in-html5/
PCClone
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
Evangelion
Sep 14, 01:14 AM
Didn't you get the memo, Hyperthreading was a joke.
At worst, it slowed performance down by few percent. At best, it gave substantial boost in performance. And multitasking-tests clearly benefitted from HyperThreading. That said, Intel dropped it, because it apparently consumed too much power. But we might see HT in some future Intel-CPU's at some point, you never know.
HT as such is not a bad idea. Sun UltraSparc T1 uses such a scheme extensively.
At worst, it slowed performance down by few percent. At best, it gave substantial boost in performance. And multitasking-tests clearly benefitted from HyperThreading. That said, Intel dropped it, because it apparently consumed too much power. But we might see HT in some future Intel-CPU's at some point, you never know.
HT as such is not a bad idea. Sun UltraSparc T1 uses such a scheme extensively.
Kane.Elson
Jul 27, 10:21 PM
Ahh so many announcments !!! Kill me now !
I'm waiting for the end of august then I'm buying whatever I can get.
I'm waiting for the end of august then I'm buying whatever I can get.
deputy_doofy
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
1. It's Merom. Not Memrom, Menron, Memron or even L. Ron.
...
So, uh, Merman and Mermaid are out too, huh? ;)
...
So, uh, Merman and Mermaid are out too, huh? ;)
Sol
Mar 23, 12:44 AM
Is MacRumors branching out to coverage of all tablets and media players now? I can't speak for everyone who visits the site but I come here to read about Apple products, not the competition's knock-offs.
xStep
Apr 11, 08:20 PM
There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Nailed it
Difinitely not. I won't say where I'd agree and disagree with for the rest of it, but that last sentence isn't right. Thousands implies a rather low number. Not nearly enough revenue for Apple to keep working on FCS. ;)
Nailed it
Difinitely not. I won't say where I'd agree and disagree with for the rest of it, but that last sentence isn't right. Thousands implies a rather low number. Not nearly enough revenue for Apple to keep working on FCS. ;)
Mac Kiwi
Jul 21, 07:24 AM
I've already got one. A SuperMac C500 to be precise! (Well, actually it's an Apus 2000, but in the US it was the C500).
SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/
:)
Ok SuperMac is definitely out then :)
SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/
:)
Ok SuperMac is definitely out then :)
NAG
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
And here I thought that data wasn't sent to Apple? At least they encrypted it so that you can't tell what actually is sent.
Edit:
But really, they are doing the right thing by truncating the size, removing it from files being backuped, and encrypting the file.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the wasn't sent argument was short for wasn't sent to Apple to track you personally. You're always sending out some sort of location data whether it be your IP or the wifi data. This was announced as a feature back when they first showed of location tracking on the iPhone (so you can't say it was secret). I guess the assumption was that people would remember context of what was said before. The context was that we knew about the anonymous wifi data and people were claiming location database on the phone was being used by Apple to track people personally (the 3rd party local access as a reasonable concern although a bit unlikely). I guess we should have been more explicit in and hoped people try to understand context instead of only becoming irrationally angry at the words "location". Oh well.
Oh, and I like how people are claiming the non-encryption was said by Apple to be a bug and then acting incredulous. Yeah, that tends to happen when you make something up. The only thing that was a bug was the cache not getting culled over time or deleted completely when location services is off. Encryption is a new feature (that arguably should have been there to start) and the file being backed up was probably an oversight. I have no idea how Apple handles their audits but they should probably look into it since they messed up here and only addressed it after we got yet another "-gate" in the media. (Do they even have a fence at this point or is it just a bunch of gates? Maybe they should make a "-gate" for that.) Informing people is, of course, good. However hysterics and hyperbole don't really do a very good job of that.
Edit:
But really, they are doing the right thing by truncating the size, removing it from files being backuped, and encrypting the file.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the wasn't sent argument was short for wasn't sent to Apple to track you personally. You're always sending out some sort of location data whether it be your IP or the wifi data. This was announced as a feature back when they first showed of location tracking on the iPhone (so you can't say it was secret). I guess the assumption was that people would remember context of what was said before. The context was that we knew about the anonymous wifi data and people were claiming location database on the phone was being used by Apple to track people personally (the 3rd party local access as a reasonable concern although a bit unlikely). I guess we should have been more explicit in and hoped people try to understand context instead of only becoming irrationally angry at the words "location". Oh well.
Oh, and I like how people are claiming the non-encryption was said by Apple to be a bug and then acting incredulous. Yeah, that tends to happen when you make something up. The only thing that was a bug was the cache not getting culled over time or deleted completely when location services is off. Encryption is a new feature (that arguably should have been there to start) and the file being backed up was probably an oversight. I have no idea how Apple handles their audits but they should probably look into it since they messed up here and only addressed it after we got yet another "-gate" in the media. (Do they even have a fence at this point or is it just a bunch of gates? Maybe they should make a "-gate" for that.) Informing people is, of course, good. However hysterics and hyperbole don't really do a very good job of that.
leekohler
Apr 28, 03:50 PM
I think it is absolutely appalling that you people are calling anyone who just wanted proof that Obama is qualified, per the constitution, to be president (being born in America) a racist. That is an awful big accusation and personally I can't believe the administration at MR allows that kind of talk.
This is exactly why I no longer donate to this site.
Did you ask to see W's birth certificate, or any other president's birth certificate? Why not?
This is exactly why I no longer donate to this site.
Did you ask to see W's birth certificate, or any other president's birth certificate? Why not?
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:08 PM
The Xoom is a great tablet. I'm willing to bet that the majority of you who have discredited it haven't even used it. And it DOES have 3.0 Honeycomb, which IS made for tablets. The iPad 2 is still a better tablet, but is it not possible some of the iPad 2's sales have come from just the Apple name? People will buy an Apple product even if it didn't have a feature.
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
jeanlain
Apr 12, 03:55 AM
"Insufficient content"
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
gibbz
Apr 27, 08:20 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
gauriemma
Jul 27, 01:25 PM
I never thought there'd come a day when I needed to know anything about what kind of chips Intel was coming out with.
propynyl
Apr 11, 12:57 PM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
I feel the same way. I mean, I'm NOT jumping ship, but I'm also not settling for the iPhone 4. I'm stuck waiting for the iPhone 5, hoping my 3Gs doesn't fall apart like it is starting to do nthisntotally sucks!! I might have to get a freaking gophone to tide me over if my 3GS falls apart.
I feel the same way. I mean, I'm NOT jumping ship, but I'm also not settling for the iPhone 4. I'm stuck waiting for the iPhone 5, hoping my 3Gs doesn't fall apart like it is starting to do nthisntotally sucks!! I might have to get a freaking gophone to tide me over if my 3GS falls apart.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 6, 04:40 PM
...but people (in general) don't want tablets. They want iPads.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
LOL... sometimes you gotta be specific. I started to notice that many people call "an iPad" to all tablets and not necessarily to a real iPads.
The reviews from people who actually bought the Xoom are mixed, but most of them claim that the quality of the Xoom is terrible when compared to the iPad and iPad2.
So far, I haven't seen any tablet that would gain my attention over the iPad.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
LOL... sometimes you gotta be specific. I started to notice that many people call "an iPad" to all tablets and not necessarily to a real iPads.
The reviews from people who actually bought the Xoom are mixed, but most of them claim that the quality of the Xoom is terrible when compared to the iPad and iPad2.
So far, I haven't seen any tablet that would gain my attention over the iPad.
lieb39
Aug 7, 06:47 PM
The new time machine feature looks really cool - and I'm sure that a option for 'secure delete' will be there - so it's not stored in the Time Machine..
Not much chatter about the preview of Leopard Server - Sneak Preview here (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/) - Just supporting the new Leopard..
This is interesting; how do they figure that they can get the service to a mobile phone?
http://images.apple.com/au/server/macosx/leopard/images/podcastproducertop20060807.png
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/podcastproducer.html
Discuss!
Cheers.
Not much chatter about the preview of Leopard Server - Sneak Preview here (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/) - Just supporting the new Leopard..
This is interesting; how do they figure that they can get the service to a mobile phone?
http://images.apple.com/au/server/macosx/leopard/images/podcastproducertop20060807.png
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/podcastproducer.html
Discuss!
Cheers.
bankshot
Aug 7, 07:12 PM
As others have said, Time Machine is likely either a direct port of Sun's ZFS, or an equivalent implementation in HFS+. Actually, that's an interesting point -- if it's ZFS, it'll require a reformat in order to use it. If they did it themselves in HFS+, that's a lot more useful for anything besides brand new machines. Though ZFS is a much more modern design, despite all the things Apple's done to extend HFS+ in recent years (journaling, case-sensitive option, etc). Might be good to make a clean break and move forward.
Anyway, no real surprise there, unless you count the fancy glitz that Apple put on top of it. And of course, who's surprised when they do that? ;)
What I'd like to know more about is Spotlight. It was one of the most disappointing features in Tiger for me. It was supposed to revolutionize how you use the computer, but it turned out to be extremely slow and almost useless to me. I suggested from day one -- in fact from the day Steve demoed Tiger at WWDC in 2004 -- that Spotlight should not only index your online drives, but also network drives and offline media (backup CDs and DVDs). The latter two are far more useful to me personally, as I have data scattered across several different computers and on dozens of backups.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
Also, will they add indexing of offline media? There's no mention of it on the Leopard Spotlight page. Do I still have time to suggest it (again)? Hmmm....
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret? Maybe they might not get done in time for release, and therefore Apple doesn't want to look bad like MS pulling Vista features left and right? Surely there's not enough time for a competitor to steal the idea and get it out before Apple does? Even if "next spring" means early June... That's no time at all in large scale software projects.
Anyway, no real surprise there, unless you count the fancy glitz that Apple put on top of it. And of course, who's surprised when they do that? ;)
What I'd like to know more about is Spotlight. It was one of the most disappointing features in Tiger for me. It was supposed to revolutionize how you use the computer, but it turned out to be extremely slow and almost useless to me. I suggested from day one -- in fact from the day Steve demoed Tiger at WWDC in 2004 -- that Spotlight should not only index your online drives, but also network drives and offline media (backup CDs and DVDs). The latter two are far more useful to me personally, as I have data scattered across several different computers and on dozens of backups.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
Also, will they add indexing of offline media? There's no mention of it on the Leopard Spotlight page. Do I still have time to suggest it (again)? Hmmm....
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret? Maybe they might not get done in time for release, and therefore Apple doesn't want to look bad like MS pulling Vista features left and right? Surely there's not enough time for a competitor to steal the idea and get it out before Apple does? Even if "next spring" means early June... That's no time at all in large scale software projects.
twoodcc
Nov 28, 08:17 PM
Won't happen.
yeah, i hope you're right. just doesn't seem right
yeah, i hope you're right. just doesn't seem right
marksman
Mar 23, 10:10 AM
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
Do you know what an iPhone is and does?
How is that comparable?
I have an original Palm PDA still shrink wrapped from the store from 1994. What relevance is that?
Are you trying to imply that those devices were in the least bit similar to an iPhone besides relative dimensions of the screen?
Do you know what an iPhone is and does?
How is that comparable?
I have an original Palm PDA still shrink wrapped from the store from 1994. What relevance is that?
Are you trying to imply that those devices were in the least bit similar to an iPhone besides relative dimensions of the screen?
akadmon
Sep 19, 11:30 AM
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
Me worry? :D
Me worry? :D
Blue Velvet
Apr 27, 02:22 PM
1. You opened it in Illustrator, not InDesign.
2. After I opened it in Illustrator like you did it did reveal some interesting things. It seems that fields #20 and #22 are on individual layers.
They're not. The proper file is flat. I downloaded and opened the PDF from the White House. Flat in both Illustrator and Photoshop, just one group on one layer... and no security on the PDF. No embedded fonts.
This is a fraud.
2. After I opened it in Illustrator like you did it did reveal some interesting things. It seems that fields #20 and #22 are on individual layers.
They're not. The proper file is flat. I downloaded and opened the PDF from the White House. Flat in both Illustrator and Photoshop, just one group on one layer... and no security on the PDF. No embedded fonts.
This is a fraud.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 2, 04:30 PM
I love that i won a mini in the mini-only race. I'll never touch either of my minis again.
