Jerry Spoon
Aug 5, 03:39 PM
I think 10 AM would be a more likely time for the Stevenote?
Uh...I hope so. If not, I'll be up at midnight getting ready to watch the keynote. I don't think I'd be worth much at work the next day.
Of course, I won't be worth much watching it at 10 am on Monday either.:D
Uh...I hope so. If not, I'll be up at midnight getting ready to watch the keynote. I don't think I'd be worth much at work the next day.
Of course, I won't be worth much watching it at 10 am on Monday either.:D
WillEH
Mar 25, 10:26 PM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
savar
Sep 13, 07:14 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
Man, I don't know why people keep saying this. On OS X, *all software utilizes the extra cores*. The only way it wouldn't is if you have less than 8 processes running, which I guarantee you that you don't. (System alone requires 20-30 processes to run.)
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
Man, I don't know why people keep saying this. On OS X, *all software utilizes the extra cores*. The only way it wouldn't is if you have less than 8 processes running, which I guarantee you that you don't. (System alone requires 20-30 processes to run.)
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:50 PM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
JimEJr
Apr 27, 10:30 AM
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
Well then shut your eyes and plug your ears...or kiss your content (aka what you DO want) good bye as those ads are what is paying for you to enjoy that news story you refer to and most anything else that is free or a lower cost than it would be without ads. You can't have it both ways. Want all bloggers, media, etc. to do everything without ads AND without a charge? You try running a biz that way...see how long you'll be able to pay your bills.
In reality, the more data advertisers have about you, the better they will be able to put forth ads that are much more relevant to you. If we're going to have ads, might as well have them be for something of genuine interest to each one of us.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
Well then shut your eyes and plug your ears...or kiss your content (aka what you DO want) good bye as those ads are what is paying for you to enjoy that news story you refer to and most anything else that is free or a lower cost than it would be without ads. You can't have it both ways. Want all bloggers, media, etc. to do everything without ads AND without a charge? You try running a biz that way...see how long you'll be able to pay your bills.
In reality, the more data advertisers have about you, the better they will be able to put forth ads that are much more relevant to you. If we're going to have ads, might as well have them be for something of genuine interest to each one of us.
shamino
Jul 20, 08:18 PM
Hehe, I remember Virginia Tech having built the 3rd fastest supercomputer out of 1100 dual powermacs G5. Back then, the XServe G5 wasn't available. You can see that in the MWSF 2004 keynote (minute 25 ff). They later switched to the Xserve G5 when those came out. It had 10.28 TF for just $5.2M.
And I remember that they were very concerned about the lack of ECC memory, and were extremely eager to replace them with Xserves as soon as the G5 model came out.
And I remember that they were very concerned about the lack of ECC memory, and were extremely eager to replace them with Xserves as soon as the G5 model came out.
bjdku
Sep 18, 11:05 PM
It would be cool but how is Apple going to keep up with this feverous pace of Intel chip releases? In a couple months there will be another chip upgrade in the whole line...what is the next chip after Merom?
WeegieMac
Apr 25, 03:17 PM
This story is hilarious, in fact the whole debacle is.
The only reason people can check what their iPhone has logged is because some idiots released open source software to check your iTunes backup.
The insinuation that a Private Investigator could track your movements, as was suggested, is idiotic since a) they'd need access to your computer, b) need have access to your iTunes backup, and c) have the program released installed on your computer to check.
The second notion, that you could be caught cheating by your partner, here's a hint: Don't be a cheating c*nt then. And again, you'd need to have a tech savvy partner.
Massively blown out of proportion, but it's only because it's Apple. Google can drive down your street and film you for their street view maps. Sure, they edit out faces and license plates when the images are put online, but the original unedited images are kept at Google. Nosey b*stards.
The only reason people can check what their iPhone has logged is because some idiots released open source software to check your iTunes backup.
The insinuation that a Private Investigator could track your movements, as was suggested, is idiotic since a) they'd need access to your computer, b) need have access to your iTunes backup, and c) have the program released installed on your computer to check.
The second notion, that you could be caught cheating by your partner, here's a hint: Don't be a cheating c*nt then. And again, you'd need to have a tech savvy partner.
Massively blown out of proportion, but it's only because it's Apple. Google can drive down your street and film you for their street view maps. Sure, they edit out faces and license plates when the images are put online, but the original unedited images are kept at Google. Nosey b*stards.
stephenli
Nov 28, 08:21 PM
If this happens, I will proudly use Bit Torrent and pirate all Universal music that I want. Right now I use itunes because the price scheme is perfect. Universal is making a big mistake.
Yes, ppl pay for their music, how come we should also pay them by purchasing an iPod?!
by the way, I still havent purchase any song in iTunes Store under Universal music label....then WHY SHOULD THEY CHARGE IT ON IPOD?!
Yes, ppl pay for their music, how come we should also pay them by purchasing an iPod?!
by the way, I still havent purchase any song in iTunes Store under Universal music label....then WHY SHOULD THEY CHARGE IT ON IPOD?!
conradzoo
Aug 11, 05:49 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
C.:confused:
ninethirty
Aug 6, 03:15 PM
You have absolutely no chance of winning any legal battle based on what you've described here.
Also, while you're whining about who stole what from who, maybe change your 'save' icon on your site. It's nearly identical to Apples.
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Also, while you're whining about who stole what from who, maybe change your 'save' icon on your site. It's nearly identical to Apples.
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
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.
Macaroony
Mar 3, 06:41 AM
I don't see any point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex, since I think homosexuality is a psychological problem caused by nurture, not by nature.
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
If everyone with genitals were always morally free to do that, homosexually abusive pedophile priests would have been morally free to molest their victims.
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
If everyone with genitals were always morally free to do that, homosexually abusive pedophile priests would have been morally free to molest their victims.
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
rezenclowd3
Aug 20, 01:16 PM
The Colin McRae series WAS great. With Dirt, its no longer a wold tour, more random than the last McRae game that was made.
I don't care for the hoppers because when I race, I don't want to sprint. I want 10+ laps. 20-30 is good. Also, when in the friggen hell will qualifying be added back into racing games???? That is half the racing experience. NOT fighting from dead last EVERY FING race! Luckily I get my fix there with the F1: Championship Edition for PS3, which really is a pretty damn good racing AND F1 game.
Oh and with Forza 3, oval is fun, which I refuse to watch in reality. BUT these guys running in the hoppers have MODIFIED their stock cars....ugh...
When I race my electric RC cars, our club has started to go to 7minute races. Still not cooking motors. Laps happens to be about 25 right now in stock timing class. I really think its the number of laps that one can do consistently makes racing more fun, not time overall IMO. Those 7minutes seem to last a VERY long time.
I don't care for the hoppers because when I race, I don't want to sprint. I want 10+ laps. 20-30 is good. Also, when in the friggen hell will qualifying be added back into racing games???? That is half the racing experience. NOT fighting from dead last EVERY FING race! Luckily I get my fix there with the F1: Championship Edition for PS3, which really is a pretty damn good racing AND F1 game.
Oh and with Forza 3, oval is fun, which I refuse to watch in reality. BUT these guys running in the hoppers have MODIFIED their stock cars....ugh...
When I race my electric RC cars, our club has started to go to 7minute races. Still not cooking motors. Laps happens to be about 25 right now in stock timing class. I really think its the number of laps that one can do consistently makes racing more fun, not time overall IMO. Those 7minutes seem to last a VERY long time.
blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:27 PM
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)
The amount of people who never bought a Microsoft product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Microsoft is really quite amusing. ;)
Unfortunately, it goes both ways.
The amount of people who never bought a Microsoft product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Microsoft is really quite amusing. ;)
Unfortunately, it goes both ways.
fivepoint
Mar 22, 08:07 AM
No. I think what I am suggesting in my post is perfectly clear. Perhaps you would like to read it again, this time without trying to insert your large collection of straw men into my argument.
Sometimes silence speaks more than words. Your avoidance of the central issue, and irrelevant or at least less relevant focus on the size, and militarism of coalition countries indicates a lack of understanding or a willful avoidance of the issue I brought up... the 'anti-change' Obama really stands for and the hypocrisy of those on the left and the American media in general when it comes to wartime actions of Dem and Repub presidents.
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
Sometimes silence speaks more than words. Your avoidance of the central issue, and irrelevant or at least less relevant focus on the size, and militarism of coalition countries indicates a lack of understanding or a willful avoidance of the issue I brought up... the 'anti-change' Obama really stands for and the hypocrisy of those on the left and the American media in general when it comes to wartime actions of Dem and Repub presidents.
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
Cheffy Dave
Mar 25, 10:44 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Bullsh|t. If Apple is really done with Lion, then they should only be charging $29 for it (if that), like 10.6. More confusing scrollbars, tiny window controls and a better graphics/OGL support...add in the touch-screen readiness and you might have a quick $29 update.
STOP!There is always WINDOZE!:rolleyes:
Bullsh|t. If Apple is really done with Lion, then they should only be charging $29 for it (if that), like 10.6. More confusing scrollbars, tiny window controls and a better graphics/OGL support...add in the touch-screen readiness and you might have a quick $29 update.
STOP!There is always WINDOZE!:rolleyes:
nxent
Jul 14, 09:27 PM
don't see why people are voting negative for this, aside from the imminent demise of the G5. anyone notice with intel's batch of processors it takes a fair amount of research to know which is faster. merom? conroe?? that 'thing' that merom has that conroe doesn't. or is it the other way around...? is it marketing? who knows. one thing i will definitely miss with powerpc is the fact that it was obvious which was faster. G4's beat G3's, G5's beat G4's. G4's and G5's have velocity engine or some vector equivalent, G3's don't. And that's about as complicated as it got. i formally surrender trying to follow intel's processor updates... swear they have one every week. not that i'm complaining, of course...
oh, and one drive for blueray, one for dvd. i think the current casing is fine, just needs that additional drive bay
oh, and one drive for blueray, one for dvd. i think the current casing is fine, just needs that additional drive bay
ATD
Sep 13, 03:20 PM
A lot of 3d programs will use as many cores as are available when rendering.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 10:19 PM
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
citizenzen
Apr 27, 10:08 AM
Eric Cantor criticizes Obama (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/eric-cantor-criticizes-president-obama-for-addressing-birth-certificate-controversy/) for releasing his long-form birth certificate.
Sometimes you just can't win. :rolleyes:
Sometimes you just can't win. :rolleyes:
leekohler
Apr 27, 03:12 PM
As stated earlier, which you conveniently ignored, I found the article on the Drudge Report. Am I not allowed to read the Drudge Report? Should I keep it exclusively to HuffPo in the future? I read them both, but you tell me how I should do it.
So typical, focus on the messenger and not on the message. Your guys posts are so littered with red herrings and strawmen its almost beyond imagination.
Since the messenger (you) has expressed huge distaste for Obama on almost a daily basis, I'd say my assumptions are fair.
So typical, focus on the messenger and not on the message. Your guys posts are so littered with red herrings and strawmen its almost beyond imagination.
Since the messenger (you) has expressed huge distaste for Obama on almost a daily basis, I'd say my assumptions are fair.
jonnysods
Apr 6, 10:44 AM
Sign me up for this please!!!
neko girl
Mar 7, 07:56 PM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).
We may disagree on philosophical or moral levels, but I'm not here to involve you in anything you find to be unpleasant. We're on an internet forum, a tech gadget forum of all things, and we're all here to have a good time. If the discussion agitates you (and it's legitimate to feel that way, you are human), then I would not want you to respond.
I'd rather that whatever you're participating in makes you a happy person.
I haven't read the pdf. I will do so now..
We may disagree on philosophical or moral levels, but I'm not here to involve you in anything you find to be unpleasant. We're on an internet forum, a tech gadget forum of all things, and we're all here to have a good time. If the discussion agitates you (and it's legitimate to feel that way, you are human), then I would not want you to respond.
I'd rather that whatever you're participating in makes you a happy person.
I haven't read the pdf. I will do so now..
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario