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.
bilbo--baggins
Nov 29, 07:33 AM
When Apple have done so much to counter piracy (introducing legal paid-for downloads, music files that cannot be re-distributed freely, generally raising awareness that music piracy is illegal) I hope that they aren't dooped into agreeing a royalty fee on iPods.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 12:54 PM
I'm kinda glad they didn't release the macbook pro's today. All that means, if they are released next week, it will be more than just a minor update :-D Here's to hoping!
I don't know if that's proof or a reason enough to think they'll have more than a chip drop-in, but I'm certainly hoping that it does get announced, and that you're right. :)
I don't know if that's proof or a reason enough to think they'll have more than a chip drop-in, but I'm certainly hoping that it does get announced, and that you're right. :)
iAlan
Nov 28, 08:16 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
Mister Snitch
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
As opposed to YOUR post, which is all about the original story. Right.
As opposed to YOUR post, which is all about the original story. Right.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 6, 10:53 AM
SB processor is great. I hope it has a backlit keyboard.
But I thought integrated graphics typically were not very good, and some software won't even work with it.
Apple giveth, Apple taketh away.
The current nvidia chip is also integrated so it's not that much of a step down. As a 13" Pro user I can happily tell anyone that for what the product is made for, it's perfectly usable. At first I was pissed at the idea but it turned out the Intel HD 3000 were more powerful than the graphics in my old laptop.
But I thought integrated graphics typically were not very good, and some software won't even work with it.
Apple giveth, Apple taketh away.
The current nvidia chip is also integrated so it's not that much of a step down. As a 13" Pro user I can happily tell anyone that for what the product is made for, it's perfectly usable. At first I was pissed at the idea but it turned out the Intel HD 3000 were more powerful than the graphics in my old laptop.
OrangeSVTguy
Apr 25, 04:23 PM
Guess we all now know what that new data center is going to be used for now.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 09:10 PM
Motorola wasn't the first company to create an iProduct and using an Apple may have infringed on The Beatles' production company's logo (not The Beatles' logo) but it was not a US company. Do you really think that Jobs got the idea for using the Apple name from The Beatles?
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
janstett
Sep 16, 10:14 AM
Dude, how many times do I have to repeat myself before you myopic '90s-era IT geeks understand me? I was referring to the difference between Windows 9x and Windows NT. I neither knew, nor care, that there were different versions of NT itself. For. Christ's. Sake. I have said this three times now. Don't make me come over there.
Well then, if you are so consistantly misinterpreted, have you ever stopped to think you should CLARIFY yourself, or that you must not be communicating your point clearly? The truth is Microsoft has dealt with two simultaneous families of operating systems from 1987-2003, and the survivor is NT/2K/XP, and it was always the better of the two operating system families that geeks like us would be concerned with, so naturally that's the one most people think of when projecting back in history.
Well then, if you are so consistantly misinterpreted, have you ever stopped to think you should CLARIFY yourself, or that you must not be communicating your point clearly? The truth is Microsoft has dealt with two simultaneous families of operating systems from 1987-2003, and the survivor is NT/2K/XP, and it was always the better of the two operating system families that geeks like us would be concerned with, so naturally that's the one most people think of when projecting back in history.
redshift1
Apr 6, 02:08 PM
No need to take shots at the Xoom - it's actually nice little device.
Doesn't have the best polish software-wise... but to act like it is THAT far off from the iPad2 is lunacy.
Indeed it is!!!!!
Doesn't have the best polish software-wise... but to act like it is THAT far off from the iPad2 is lunacy.
Indeed it is!!!!!
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 13, 07:25 AM
While Clovertown and Kenstfield ar interesting as probably going to be the first consumer quad core CPUs, they are currently much like Intels initial stabs at Dual Core, which were largely two Pentium chips jammed together. What will be interesting to see is the second generation Intel quad cores and (probably) first generation AMD quad core CPUs, which should be to Kenstfield and Clovertown as the Core Duo family is to the dual core Pentium 4s, though maybe not quite the same performance jump.
iliketyla
Apr 6, 02:03 PM
Motorola not selling any units of a crappy product? Huh... who'd have thought.
I wish they'd start banning people who makes baseless comments like this.
I wish they'd start banning people who makes baseless comments like this.
KingYaba
Mar 1, 04:47 AM
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Couldn't God just forgive everyone and make heaven bigger?
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Couldn't God just forgive everyone and make heaven bigger?
runninmac
Aug 17, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Oh, please believe it is.
:eek:
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Oh, please believe it is.
:eek:
TangoCharlie
Jul 28, 05:17 AM
Ensoniq, thanks so much for the useful corrections. How significant do you think that 64-bit capability will be in the future compared to not having it(say, 2-3 years time)?
AFAIK, the Merom CPUs have an improved SpeedStep technology, so that
on average the heat generation may infact be lower for Merom.
AFAIK, the Merom CPUs have an improved SpeedStep technology, so that
on average the heat generation may infact be lower for Merom.
Macaroony
Mar 3, 03:40 AM
Bill, I would love to hear your explanation for the position of the male prostate.
A quick side note: Sexual tension is most often the cause for anger, jealousy and frustration. So, if everyone had at least one good orgasm every day, the world would be a much more relaxed and peaceful place and we wouldn't have the need for silly discussions such as these.
A quick side note: Sexual tension is most often the cause for anger, jealousy and frustration. So, if everyone had at least one good orgasm every day, the world would be a much more relaxed and peaceful place and we wouldn't have the need for silly discussions such as these.
manu chao
Jul 20, 06:14 PM
Definitely need 8 cores me.
One for running whatever program I'm working on.
One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.
One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..
One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.
One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.
One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.
Portal 2 Background Map
LLCAnother portal into
One for running whatever program I'm working on.
One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.
One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..
One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.
One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.
One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.
Tommyg117
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
anyone else a little underwhelmed with today's WWDC? There isn't anything that really jumped out at me besides the Mac Pro.
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 01:44 PM
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
Apple's not spiteful at all. Nah. /sarcasm
Apple's not spiteful at all. Nah. /sarcasm
Sydde
Mar 18, 02:07 AM
We can totally fix the deficit just by taxing the catholic church alone...
Probably not, but it would help a lot. Especially if we could tax them at unearned income rates. I say we should do it. Religious leaders are the source of a great many of this world's problem, it is time we charge them for the cleanup.
Probably not, but it would help a lot. Especially if we could tax them at unearned income rates. I say we should do it. Religious leaders are the source of a great many of this world's problem, it is time we charge them for the cleanup.
wmmk
Jul 14, 03:30 PM
You would think they would come out with the fastest chip...
I mean what seperates them from a Dell or HP workstation that is top of the line? OS X (yes), but to the ones on the fence that doesn't justify paying more for less.
A 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest will probably be faster than a 2.93Ghz Conroe. A 1.83Ghz Yonah is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium, right?;)
I mean what seperates them from a Dell or HP workstation that is top of the line? OS X (yes), but to the ones on the fence that doesn't justify paying more for less.
A 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest will probably be faster than a 2.93Ghz Conroe. A 1.83Ghz Yonah is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium, right?;)
silversin
Apr 11, 03:20 PM
Key component supplier? Who?
The A5 chip already being delivered.
Qualcomm chips already being delivered.
Camera parts from Sony. (if true)
If they are staying with the same screen size, LG is already delivering those too.
If not, that's the only part which Apple needs more time testing? For gods sake it's only a bigger screen...
Total BS story IMO
The A5 chip already being delivered.
Qualcomm chips already being delivered.
Camera parts from Sony. (if true)
If they are staying with the same screen size, LG is already delivering those too.
If not, that's the only part which Apple needs more time testing? For gods sake it's only a bigger screen...
Total BS story IMO
blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:30 PM
Just speaking to your 'year of the linux' quote that's all.
I completely agree, but let's be honest, Apple and Microsoft fans are no different.
I completely agree, but let's be honest, Apple and Microsoft fans are no different.
bedifferent
Apr 10, 10:51 PM
Whether you think it's an issue or not is subjective. The guy I was replying to was implying that a different person worked on iMovie 08 and that same person was also behind the new Final Cut when in reality the lead architect has stayed the same throughout.
Oh I know, I was commenting on that, not you.
Oh I know, I was commenting on that, not you.
