ppnkg
Jul 27, 07:07 PM
With those frequent speed bumps I begin to worry that my G5 imac will not be fast enough to run Leopard...
shigzeo
Aug 6, 09:04 AM
2 gig shuffle, same head amp out, same package, just 2 gigs and certainty that apple won't replace it with nano... or in september, october, november when the new nano comes out, let it have the same or upgraded shuffle head amp out.
for me, no new mac till next year at earliest so... bother it all, i will share in all of my macrumors' mates excitement!
for me, no new mac till next year at earliest so... bother it all, i will share in all of my macrumors' mates excitement!
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 05:21 PM
The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware.
Or software...bye-bye Rosetta. :(
Or software...bye-bye Rosetta. :(
grue
Apr 12, 12:56 AM
I like Motion, just wish the timeline was a little better.
People actually use Motion, for actual work?
Motion is a lot like After Effects, if After Effects' mom got drunk, did some crank and tossed herself down a flight of stairs every Friday night during her pregnancy, and then delivered a breech baby with the cord wrapped around its neck.
and then dropped it.
twice.
People actually use Motion, for actual work?
Motion is a lot like After Effects, if After Effects' mom got drunk, did some crank and tossed herself down a flight of stairs every Friday night during her pregnancy, and then delivered a breech baby with the cord wrapped around its neck.
and then dropped it.
twice.
BackInTheSaddle
Aug 26, 10:00 AM
A lot of it is perception...if you don't get a defect, the product is great. But as the chairman of Matsushita (Panasonic) once observed about product quality, no matter how high your standards are, for the person getting a problem unit, your quality is 100% defective. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of it. There are more people buying Apple computers today than ever before, so there will be a much larger volume of problems.
I've had great experiences with Applecare so far, only one instance where I felt the person was reading his answers off a cue card. If I talk to an engineer, I get someone who knows the product, understands the problem I'm explaining and is actually able to solve the problem, in American English so far, thank God. Don't know what tech support is like for those folks outside of the USA and Canada, but Apple gets a big thumbs up from me. (That doesn't apply to .Mac however; Apple REALLY needs to improve support there.)
And for my money, Dell and Toshiba could learn a thing or two from Apple on how to provide tech support.
I've had great experiences with Applecare so far, only one instance where I felt the person was reading his answers off a cue card. If I talk to an engineer, I get someone who knows the product, understands the problem I'm explaining and is actually able to solve the problem, in American English so far, thank God. Don't know what tech support is like for those folks outside of the USA and Canada, but Apple gets a big thumbs up from me. (That doesn't apply to .Mac however; Apple REALLY needs to improve support there.)
And for my money, Dell and Toshiba could learn a thing or two from Apple on how to provide tech support.
DeathChill
Mar 31, 10:55 PM
iPhone is sold as buy-one-get-one-free? In what country would that be?
Narnia.
Narnia.
cloudnine
Aug 25, 05:02 PM
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
%255B2%255D.jpg "(High resolution, No password)")
marksman
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
Only if you do not add products like the iPad and the iPod Touch. In other words, if you throw out 50% of the iOS products.
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
JGowan
Aug 6, 06:46 PM
I have satellite internet and have not been able to see keynote streams since getting it. Quicktime just opens up and says "Connecting" but never does.
Is there some other source that I can expect to show the keynote (in its entirety, please)... Living in the country is a love/hate thing these days.
Thanks.
Is there some other source that I can expect to show the keynote (in its entirety, please)... Living in the country is a love/hate thing these days.
Thanks.
2IS
Apr 6, 10:37 AM
For most people the ipad is more useful than the air anyway imo. Yes i owned an air, the ipad 1, and now the ipad 2 and the air was just a watered down macbook pro more than the ipad is a scaled up ipod touch
More portable yes. More useful, not by a long shot.
More portable yes. More useful, not by a long shot.
ergle2
Sep 21, 03:17 PM
I had the pleasure of meeting Jef Raskin at his home in Pacifica a year before he passed away. He loved to play musical instruments and performed a short recital on his piano. Later that evening, after showing his Apple I in a wooden box, he encouraged me to read his book The Humane Interface and let him know what I thought about it. Sadly, I wasn't able to do that in time. But the conversation we had made it clear that he was not a fan of Steve Jobs. They both had strong opinions on various aspects of UI design. Even though I rather like OS X, Raskin politely argued against the inefficiencies of that design.
It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.
It doesn't surprise me he was no fan of Jobs, especially given the history of the original Mac. From people I know who've worked with Jobs, he's not always easy to get along with.
From what I've read, the Mac was fundamentally quite different from Raskin's original vision after Jobs took over the project, though some of his ideas were obviously incorporated into it. (I believe Raskin wanted to go with the cheaper but obviously slower 6809).
His book's been one I've meant to track down for some time now. You know how it is, so many things to do/see...
The Archy interface modelled on his concepts is quite interesting, too.
I was sorry when we lost Jef, I feel he was one of those people striving to make the world a better place.
What did you think of The Humane Design?
It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.
It doesn't surprise me he was no fan of Jobs, especially given the history of the original Mac. From people I know who've worked with Jobs, he's not always easy to get along with.
From what I've read, the Mac was fundamentally quite different from Raskin's original vision after Jobs took over the project, though some of his ideas were obviously incorporated into it. (I believe Raskin wanted to go with the cheaper but obviously slower 6809).
His book's been one I've meant to track down for some time now. You know how it is, so many things to do/see...
The Archy interface modelled on his concepts is quite interesting, too.
I was sorry when we lost Jef, I feel he was one of those people striving to make the world a better place.
What did you think of The Humane Design?
vand0576
Aug 11, 01:53 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...
Um, I think the point is that it is an Apple phone. Apple would make it. Otherwise we end up with the Motorola ROKR or which ever other models they have that "feature" iTunes.
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...
Um, I think the point is that it is an Apple phone. Apple would make it. Otherwise we end up with the Motorola ROKR or which ever other models they have that "feature" iTunes.
MacinDoc
Aug 26, 11:40 PM
I just called Apple support, I was on hold for over 20 minutes, then I was disconnected. No wonder people are unhappy :mad: :( :confused:
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
snebes
Apr 11, 12:29 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.
You do know that Apple's FISCAL Year 2012 starts around the end of September, meaning you would wait around 3-4 months assuming this rumor is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year
I don't mean to single you out, but I see this confusion every time a fiscal year is mentioned, and it bugs me. I don't care if you switch to a different phone. Hell, just get the iPhone 4, it is a world of difference compared to the the iPhone 3G (I just made the switch from 3G to 4 a few months ago, I couldn't stand how slow the 3G was)
You do know that Apple's FISCAL Year 2012 starts around the end of September, meaning you would wait around 3-4 months assuming this rumor is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year
I don't mean to single you out, but I see this confusion every time a fiscal year is mentioned, and it bugs me. I don't care if you switch to a different phone. Hell, just get the iPhone 4, it is a world of difference compared to the the iPhone 3G (I just made the switch from 3G to 4 a few months ago, I couldn't stand how slow the 3G was)
amols
Aug 6, 08:52 AM
Not lame. Childish. I mean seriously. Is your (Generic your.) MBP any slower the day after they announce Core 2 MBPs? I swear to god it's almost as if people's lives are so incomplete that they need to feel special by having the top of the dog pile hardware. I received my MBP on Feb 21st at 10:30AM. Apple can do whatever they want. I'll still be enjoying my Mac at the same level I did on the 21st.
Well...I've used and ENJOYED iMac G4 for five years which is still going strong by the way. I just can't help but wonder how stupid and childish it is to expect that Apple will upgrade it already awesome MBP. The Merom CPU has very minor perforformance benefit over Yonah until Santa Rosa is out next year. It has double the L2 catch, 140M more transistors and 3 Watt/hour more cons (34W/H) than Yonah (31W/H). Conroe with faster FSB is a totally different story. So I personally have nothing against those poor souls expecting new notebooks but sympothy.
Well...I've used and ENJOYED iMac G4 for five years which is still going strong by the way. I just can't help but wonder how stupid and childish it is to expect that Apple will upgrade it already awesome MBP. The Merom CPU has very minor perforformance benefit over Yonah until Santa Rosa is out next year. It has double the L2 catch, 140M more transistors and 3 Watt/hour more cons (34W/H) than Yonah (31W/H). Conroe with faster FSB is a totally different story. So I personally have nothing against those poor souls expecting new notebooks but sympothy.
Timepass
Jul 15, 11:18 AM
:o
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
Come on PSU do are not that heavy and genenally speaking cases are pretty stable. Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel. It a Tower that going to be out of the way and not hit that offen. Come on PC have been built for years with PSU at the top. Are they unstable... No they are fairly stable. Considering 95+% of all PC towers out there have the PSU at the top and are they tipping over at a slight hit.. No. you have to tip them pretty far before they will fall over.
Also there are other advatages of putting the PSU at the top. Instead of having to make another fan system to cool it and keep it separated from the rest of the case due to the heat it generatates you can now put it at the top where it not going to add heat to the case and use the PSU fans to help cool the rest of the computer.
Lets see that means less fans are needed over all in the computer which means Oh my gosh. LESS NOISE. <sarcasim>Is that possible. Using a PSU fans to help cool the entire computer...... Who as ever heard of such a thing. <sarcasim> Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best.
It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how.
It WILL NOT add any more noise to the computer (it will reduce it because the PSU can now help cool the case with it own cooling fans as well)
Power plug at the top.. Um yeah not really a problem. Oh dang a wire is not 12 in higher than it was before. it is still on the back. and instead of plugging in you monitor at the top of the case and the plug on the bottom they flip locations. You the user will never notices or care.
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
Come on PSU do are not that heavy and genenally speaking cases are pretty stable. Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel. It a Tower that going to be out of the way and not hit that offen. Come on PC have been built for years with PSU at the top. Are they unstable... No they are fairly stable. Considering 95+% of all PC towers out there have the PSU at the top and are they tipping over at a slight hit.. No. you have to tip them pretty far before they will fall over.
Also there are other advatages of putting the PSU at the top. Instead of having to make another fan system to cool it and keep it separated from the rest of the case due to the heat it generatates you can now put it at the top where it not going to add heat to the case and use the PSU fans to help cool the rest of the computer.
Lets see that means less fans are needed over all in the computer which means Oh my gosh. LESS NOISE. <sarcasim>Is that possible. Using a PSU fans to help cool the entire computer...... Who as ever heard of such a thing. <sarcasim> Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best.
It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how.
It WILL NOT add any more noise to the computer (it will reduce it because the PSU can now help cool the case with it own cooling fans as well)
Power plug at the top.. Um yeah not really a problem. Oh dang a wire is not 12 in higher than it was before. it is still on the back. and instead of plugging in you monitor at the top of the case and the plug on the bottom they flip locations. You the user will never notices or care.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
wiestlingjr
Jun 9, 07:23 PM
Bibbz,
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
skunk
Mar 1, 06:45 AM
Dr. Josiah B. Gould, the Plato scholar who taught me Ancient Philosophy, told us that, that although homosexuality was common among Greek aristocrats in ancient Greece, to them, sodomy was repugnant.Dr Simon Hornblower, the author of several books about ancient Greece and editor of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, a friend of mine, agrees with me that there is no way your teacher could know any such thing, and that homosexuality was not common only among aristocrats. The Greeks, and Romans for that matter, made little distinction between sexes or orifices when it came to getting their rocks off.
MyDesktopBroke
Mar 18, 07:16 AM
How many times did Barack Obama attempt to draw a difference between himself and Hillary by saying "I was against the war from the beginning."? Lots.
How many times did he attempt to portray himself as the polar opposite of George Bush, especially his foreign policy? Lots.
How many times did he say that he was going to repair the view of America in the eyes of the Muslim world? Lots.
How many times did he say he would talk to leaders of 'terrorist nations' without preconditions? Lots.
The point is... he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. On foreign policy, he's more of the same. On everything else, especially domestic spending, he's much much worse.
He did say all those things - but none of those make him a military dove, since in his debates with McCain he did extensively paint Afghanistan as the "right war," or the place were America "should have been." How many times did he promise to "find and kill" Bin Laden? Even before the debates he was openly pushing Afghan and Pakistan escalation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0WOFrEgRu4
According to the Tea Party, he's doing everything he can to appease Muslims, too. While they obviously are using that as an attack, his speeches in the middle east and Egypt after his election showed a marked difference in communication and downplayed American exceptionalism. Plus, so far he hasn't had a request from a terrorist leader to talk, if I'm not mistaken, so that's not really a fair comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU
(I can't good youtube links for his Turkey speech - the one with the "not a Christian nation remark)
Obviously he's failed on a lot of campaign promises - especially on the front of reversing Bush domestic policies like the PATRIOT act - but I'd argue that people who saw Obama as the anti-war candidate were the ones who didn't pay attention. The last part about spending doesn't really connect to this issue.
How many times did he attempt to portray himself as the polar opposite of George Bush, especially his foreign policy? Lots.
How many times did he say that he was going to repair the view of America in the eyes of the Muslim world? Lots.
How many times did he say he would talk to leaders of 'terrorist nations' without preconditions? Lots.
The point is... he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. On foreign policy, he's more of the same. On everything else, especially domestic spending, he's much much worse.
He did say all those things - but none of those make him a military dove, since in his debates with McCain he did extensively paint Afghanistan as the "right war," or the place were America "should have been." How many times did he promise to "find and kill" Bin Laden? Even before the debates he was openly pushing Afghan and Pakistan escalation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0WOFrEgRu4
According to the Tea Party, he's doing everything he can to appease Muslims, too. While they obviously are using that as an attack, his speeches in the middle east and Egypt after his election showed a marked difference in communication and downplayed American exceptionalism. Plus, so far he hasn't had a request from a terrorist leader to talk, if I'm not mistaken, so that's not really a fair comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU
(I can't good youtube links for his Turkey speech - the one with the "not a Christian nation remark)
Obviously he's failed on a lot of campaign promises - especially on the front of reversing Bush domestic policies like the PATRIOT act - but I'd argue that people who saw Obama as the anti-war candidate were the ones who didn't pay attention. The last part about spending doesn't really connect to this issue.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:27 PM
I guess you missed the part where the one that is being shown is a certified copy.
Maybe?? For someone who isn't a birther, you sure sound like one.
Apparently the short form wasn't convincing enough...which is why the long form has now been presented.
I suspected it was a copy, I've never trusted the president, and I probably never will. It's one thing to doubt that the certificate is legitimate. It's quite another to believe that the certificate is not legitimate.
Maybe?? For someone who isn't a birther, you sure sound like one.
Apparently the short form wasn't convincing enough...which is why the long form has now been presented.
I suspected it was a copy, I've never trusted the president, and I probably never will. It's one thing to doubt that the certificate is legitimate. It's quite another to believe that the certificate is not legitimate.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 04:10 PM
That didn't actually happen.
But he did mention the iPad does not run a tablet OS (talking point achievement accomplished!), so Google gives him a cookie for that!
But he did mention the iPad does not run a tablet OS (talking point achievement accomplished!), so Google gives him a cookie for that!
rayz
Aug 8, 02:08 AM
From the Apple website...
Backup Disk: Change the drive or volume you�re backing up to. Or back up to a Mac OS X server computer.
Ouch .... :eek:
Backup Disk: Change the drive or volume you�re backing up to. Or back up to a Mac OS X server computer.
Ouch .... :eek:
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:28 AM
http://dissociatedpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/facebook-meh-button-500.png
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
A clear and balanced argument ladies and gentlemen.
So cogently valid as to supersede the need for evidence.
Edit: Wait .. i just got the sarcasm .. damn!
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
A clear and balanced argument ladies and gentlemen.
So cogently valid as to supersede the need for evidence.
Edit: Wait .. i just got the sarcasm .. damn!
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий