maclaptop
Apr 12, 07:41 AM
Again I am amazed at how many people here think a 4" screen is the wave of the future. It is not.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
DoFoT9
Aug 11, 07:39 AM
Still not much stopping one from purchasing other region games:D Need to pick up the Asian version of Demons Souls as well to try the glitch out for max stats. I do like that the PS3 can play all region titles.
shipping would be pretty high i imagine! :p glad to know us aussies are being thought of!
shipping would be pretty high i imagine! :p glad to know us aussies are being thought of!
Multimedia
Jul 27, 11:26 PM
if merom produces less heat.. i would think that apple will quickly update both MB and MBP so it won't be releasing anymore problematic notebooksYes your logic is impecible. But Apple does not act on logic. They are in it for the money. :D
DesmoPilot
Aug 10, 06:06 PM
And they aint half brilliant. GT reminds me of a casualised WTCC (or at least the rally tracks). It's a very serious toy for very serious sim drivers.
GTR1/2 are brilliant games and the definition of Sim racing.
GTR1/2 are brilliant games and the definition of Sim racing.
SwiftLives
Mar 17, 10:55 AM
While I disagree with your statement that both parties are the same, I will concede that both parties work for interests that are not necessarily the same as those of the people who voted for them...
obeygiant
Mar 17, 12:28 PM
Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
If you need links for the items the 5p listed, you weren't paying attention during the campaign.
Hypocrisy is an occupational hazard for all presidents, since the tough-minded realities of governing trump the foolish consistencies of the campaign trail.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
If you need links for the items the 5p listed, you weren't paying attention during the campaign.
Hypocrisy is an occupational hazard for all presidents, since the tough-minded realities of governing trump the foolish consistencies of the campaign trail.
guffman
Aug 6, 01:46 PM
Apple is described as an "Applicant".
good catch - I still think it won't matter...
EDIT: In this link, the company is also described as an "Applicant"
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=odbjam.6.1
good catch - I still think it won't matter...
EDIT: In this link, the company is also described as an "Applicant"
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=odbjam.6.1
dclocke
Sep 19, 07:37 AM
It amazes me that people can get so worked up about a processor that was only officially released three weeks ago.
It never ends either. As soon as Merom chips are in the MacBook range everyone will just move on to the next thing. When are Apple going to put quad cores in their high end products? When are the Macbooks going to be updated with Santa Rosa? When are we going to get nand cache?
It amazes me that people who are so opposed to discussion of upcoming Merom notebooks still click on the links to the forums with titles using the terms "Merom" and "MacBook Pro". If you're a regular on the forums, sure, I can see how constant discussion about the "next" platform might get old. So ignore them. Do something productive with your time. In my case, I am currently in the market for a MBP. I have two other laptops, so I don't need one. But I want one. And when it's likely that updates are imminent, it's smart in my case to wait. For that, these threads serve a purpose, by notifying me of new rumors/news that I might not find otherwise. In addition, I learned of the student ADC membership which may save me $400 on my new laptop purchase. Once I buy the notebook, I will probably not look at this site very often for a few years, when I am ready to buy a new one. So let people talk about new hardware. People who are getting ready to spend >$2000 on a laptop have every right to anticipate when the next "update" will be, so they can better time when to make their purchase.
What's funny is that even if new MacBooks and MacBook Pros were released tomorrow with the newer Merom chip, 90% of you folks in here wouldn't notice a difference in your daily computing. You would not say "OMG, this 64 bit processing and extra .16Ghz speed is AWESOME!!! I can't BELIEVE I lived without this for so long!!!" You wouldn't even notice unless someone told you.
Granted, my argument will likely place me in the other 10% of posters. But here goes anyway. Some of us aren't here because we are looking forward to a 16GHz speed increase. Some of us see other tangible benefits to a MBP update.
1. The 64-bit ISA, for a few reasons. First, what if I want to run Vista sometime down the road? Leopard will support 32-bit processors, but why not take full advantage of 64-bit capabilities when it's built in? Those of us who purchase will likely have the machine for a few years. Who knows what kinds of applications that take advantage of a 64-bit ISA will emerge during that time? Also, from a development aspect, I am looking forward to having a 64-bit machine available to me.
2. Possiblity of other upgrades, and/or a price decrease. Some changes that would be nice are: more memory as a base option (for equal or lesser price), easily replaceable HD, upgraded graphics card, etc... The list goes on. It is redundant to post this here, since it is all over the entries in this thread (and others).
When most people in this thread say "Merom", what they really mean is "notebook with a Merom processor and hopefully some other changes for the better as well." Sure, there are others who just hear the word "Merom," know it's the latest Intel chip, and want it for purely that reason. Well, you know what? They're getting ready to spend a lot of money on a machine, so they can wait for whatever they want to wait for. Give 'em a break. Let them discuss it. Let them speculate. If you get tired of it, don't read the thread. And don't be condescending towards them just because they want to feel like they made a smart purchase.
It never ends either. As soon as Merom chips are in the MacBook range everyone will just move on to the next thing. When are Apple going to put quad cores in their high end products? When are the Macbooks going to be updated with Santa Rosa? When are we going to get nand cache?
It amazes me that people who are so opposed to discussion of upcoming Merom notebooks still click on the links to the forums with titles using the terms "Merom" and "MacBook Pro". If you're a regular on the forums, sure, I can see how constant discussion about the "next" platform might get old. So ignore them. Do something productive with your time. In my case, I am currently in the market for a MBP. I have two other laptops, so I don't need one. But I want one. And when it's likely that updates are imminent, it's smart in my case to wait. For that, these threads serve a purpose, by notifying me of new rumors/news that I might not find otherwise. In addition, I learned of the student ADC membership which may save me $400 on my new laptop purchase. Once I buy the notebook, I will probably not look at this site very often for a few years, when I am ready to buy a new one. So let people talk about new hardware. People who are getting ready to spend >$2000 on a laptop have every right to anticipate when the next "update" will be, so they can better time when to make their purchase.
What's funny is that even if new MacBooks and MacBook Pros were released tomorrow with the newer Merom chip, 90% of you folks in here wouldn't notice a difference in your daily computing. You would not say "OMG, this 64 bit processing and extra .16Ghz speed is AWESOME!!! I can't BELIEVE I lived without this for so long!!!" You wouldn't even notice unless someone told you.
Granted, my argument will likely place me in the other 10% of posters. But here goes anyway. Some of us aren't here because we are looking forward to a 16GHz speed increase. Some of us see other tangible benefits to a MBP update.
1. The 64-bit ISA, for a few reasons. First, what if I want to run Vista sometime down the road? Leopard will support 32-bit processors, but why not take full advantage of 64-bit capabilities when it's built in? Those of us who purchase will likely have the machine for a few years. Who knows what kinds of applications that take advantage of a 64-bit ISA will emerge during that time? Also, from a development aspect, I am looking forward to having a 64-bit machine available to me.
2. Possiblity of other upgrades, and/or a price decrease. Some changes that would be nice are: more memory as a base option (for equal or lesser price), easily replaceable HD, upgraded graphics card, etc... The list goes on. It is redundant to post this here, since it is all over the entries in this thread (and others).
When most people in this thread say "Merom", what they really mean is "notebook with a Merom processor and hopefully some other changes for the better as well." Sure, there are others who just hear the word "Merom," know it's the latest Intel chip, and want it for purely that reason. Well, you know what? They're getting ready to spend a lot of money on a machine, so they can wait for whatever they want to wait for. Give 'em a break. Let them discuss it. Let them speculate. If you get tired of it, don't read the thread. And don't be condescending towards them just because they want to feel like they made a smart purchase.
rmwebs
Mar 26, 04:54 AM
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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
Probably all three ;) The QA team has gradually got worse and worse over the last few years. Apple have become more and more greedy, and you can bet the Mac OS coders cant be bothered to work on its ancient codebase when across the office a group of people get to play with the newer (granted still based on Mac OS) iOS.
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
Probably all three ;) The QA team has gradually got worse and worse over the last few years. Apple have become more and more greedy, and you can bet the Mac OS coders cant be bothered to work on its ancient codebase when across the office a group of people get to play with the newer (granted still based on Mac OS) iOS.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 02:13 AM
Sure, but did Samsung patent it?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
And the design was released after the iPhone was out.
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
And the design was released after the iPhone was out.
DennisVR
Apr 27, 08:08 AM
I don't understand all the commotion. If Steve wants to know where i'm hanging around in the weekend, he can :rolleyes:
Legion93
Apr 6, 03:34 PM
Perfect day for this news....
I have a new 13" MBA sitting here at my desk unopened...just dropped off from FedEx today. I'm debating whether or not to just return it and wait for the refresh or be happy with what I got.
I'm a very light user..web, email, iTunes, sync iPhone and iPad. Do I really need the Sandy Bridge power..probably not but I dont want to have the "old not so shiny ball" come June (as the rumors suggest).
Any help from the MR community is greatly appreciated!
Don't get your hopes up, as any rumour is just a speculation. Apple may or may not release any updated version of the MBA very soon, but it can all depend. If you really want power, you could sell your Air for a MBP, which came out only couple months ago.
I have a new 13" MBA sitting here at my desk unopened...just dropped off from FedEx today. I'm debating whether or not to just return it and wait for the refresh or be happy with what I got.
I'm a very light user..web, email, iTunes, sync iPhone and iPad. Do I really need the Sandy Bridge power..probably not but I dont want to have the "old not so shiny ball" come June (as the rumors suggest).
Any help from the MR community is greatly appreciated!
Don't get your hopes up, as any rumour is just a speculation. Apple may or may not release any updated version of the MBA very soon, but it can all depend. If you really want power, you could sell your Air for a MBP, which came out only couple months ago.
stormj
Aug 11, 01:41 PM
Here are some of the issues with the iPod phone.
In order to make the biggest splash, it will have to be available in both GSM and CDMA versions so that all of the big 4 carriers can use it. GSM is the international standard, so I'm sure they will have that *at least*.
In order for it to matter, it will have to be able to access the music store over the air. Have you tried downloading an MP3 file, even on an EDGE connection? It sucks.
The delay here has more to do with the networks. Until the 3G networks are fully rolled out (EV-DO on Verizon, UTMS on GSM, etc. etc.) and available beyond a few cities, this phone will just frustrate people. (Verizon's rollout has gone much further, but I would think given that CDMA is rare outside of the US that that fails to compensate for the fact that the GSM 3G is still in just a few markets.)
The latest rumor is that wide-spread UTMS roll out will be in Q1 2007. When that happens, we'll see an iPod phone. It's not as if Apple couldn't have made an Apple-rific phone by now. The limitation isn't theirs, it's the networks'.
In the meantime, you can get an HTC Tytn that will use 3G world wide and will play MediaPlayer... if you're into M$.
In order to make the biggest splash, it will have to be available in both GSM and CDMA versions so that all of the big 4 carriers can use it. GSM is the international standard, so I'm sure they will have that *at least*.
In order for it to matter, it will have to be able to access the music store over the air. Have you tried downloading an MP3 file, even on an EDGE connection? It sucks.
The delay here has more to do with the networks. Until the 3G networks are fully rolled out (EV-DO on Verizon, UTMS on GSM, etc. etc.) and available beyond a few cities, this phone will just frustrate people. (Verizon's rollout has gone much further, but I would think given that CDMA is rare outside of the US that that fails to compensate for the fact that the GSM 3G is still in just a few markets.)
The latest rumor is that wide-spread UTMS roll out will be in Q1 2007. When that happens, we'll see an iPod phone. It's not as if Apple couldn't have made an Apple-rific phone by now. The limitation isn't theirs, it's the networks'.
In the meantime, you can get an HTC Tytn that will use 3G world wide and will play MediaPlayer... if you're into M$.
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:18 PM
I had hoped for the ability to link files and folders with contacts in my address book, I can only hope this is one of those top secret items.
I would also have liked some way of sharing my appointments in ical with the windows people I am meeting, to date ical will send them an email with an ical attachment, but they are unable to do anything with it.
Someone please tell me I can already do these things or that I have a chance of doing them in X.5
I would also have liked some way of sharing my appointments in ical with the windows people I am meeting, to date ical will send them an email with an ical attachment, but they are unable to do anything with it.
Someone please tell me I can already do these things or that I have a chance of doing them in X.5
rolandf
Aug 8, 05:14 AM
I just went through my older posts, concerning Apple's strategy and future, e.g. the role of Vista. I still think, what I said several month ago is still an issue. Having seen Leopard as it stands is not very promising for Apple's future.
Let me remember you, that some of the key people at Apple left the company! In the posts there has been "monolithic kernel" and "NEXT" bashing.
Question: Did they improve the kernel?
Question: How much will the integration / interoperability be with Unix / Linux?
Question: Is there still a future for the Open Source community, or is Leopard just making OS X more proprietary?
Question: Are they continuing to water down their PRO Apps, intermingling it with the OS and making everything more childish?
Question: Is this OS 10.5 usable for a tablet PC? How strong are features like handwriting and speech recognition? (Remember, we are approaching 2010!)
Question: Will they still continue to make the UI more heterogeneous and disorganised, this mix of unmotivated 3D, lack of resolution independence, for every single task a separate application etc.
Question: Virtualisation is a standard for many OS's in the Unix world. A company that sells servers, should be comfortable with that.
Question: How efficient will the OS be, given the arrival of multi-core processors, e.g. quad etc.?
But as it seems, OS X still lives from the legacy, from the NEXT computer that quantum leap in computer history and meanwhile MS with Vista just improved a lot the feel and look, so as others also remarked it, the need to switch to Mac is not given for an everyday user.
Apple conveys to me the image of a company working on too many things at the same time, loosing focus, innovation and good people. Further since the Intel switch even the motivation to further push the design of the hardware did not happen, and the "products we wanted to build, but could not" did not appear.
Will at least the Playstation 3 be the highlight of the year and the direction for the future?
Let me remember you, that some of the key people at Apple left the company! In the posts there has been "monolithic kernel" and "NEXT" bashing.
Question: Did they improve the kernel?
Question: How much will the integration / interoperability be with Unix / Linux?
Question: Is there still a future for the Open Source community, or is Leopard just making OS X more proprietary?
Question: Are they continuing to water down their PRO Apps, intermingling it with the OS and making everything more childish?
Question: Is this OS 10.5 usable for a tablet PC? How strong are features like handwriting and speech recognition? (Remember, we are approaching 2010!)
Question: Will they still continue to make the UI more heterogeneous and disorganised, this mix of unmotivated 3D, lack of resolution independence, for every single task a separate application etc.
Question: Virtualisation is a standard for many OS's in the Unix world. A company that sells servers, should be comfortable with that.
Question: How efficient will the OS be, given the arrival of multi-core processors, e.g. quad etc.?
But as it seems, OS X still lives from the legacy, from the NEXT computer that quantum leap in computer history and meanwhile MS with Vista just improved a lot the feel and look, so as others also remarked it, the need to switch to Mac is not given for an everyday user.
Apple conveys to me the image of a company working on too many things at the same time, loosing focus, innovation and good people. Further since the Intel switch even the motivation to further push the design of the hardware did not happen, and the "products we wanted to build, but could not" did not appear.
Will at least the Playstation 3 be the highlight of the year and the direction for the future?
Homy
Aug 6, 07:24 AM
MBP owners don't need to worry yet. AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=1)
"The biggest performance gains are associated with 3D rendering and media encoding tasks. While Core 2 Duo does look nice, as long as you've got a good notebook today you'll probably want to wait until Santa Rosa before upgrading (at the earliest). With Santa Rosa, clock speeds will go up slightly but more importantly we'll get access to a faster FSB. Unfortunately a side-effect of keeping Core 2 Duo fed with a faster FSB is that while performance may go up, battery life may go down. For Apple users this means that early adopters of the new MacBook or MacBook Pro won't be too pressured to upgrade again by the end of this year. Of course Apple has this way of making incremental changes irresistible."
"The biggest performance gains are associated with 3D rendering and media encoding tasks. While Core 2 Duo does look nice, as long as you've got a good notebook today you'll probably want to wait until Santa Rosa before upgrading (at the earliest). With Santa Rosa, clock speeds will go up slightly but more importantly we'll get access to a faster FSB. Unfortunately a side-effect of keeping Core 2 Duo fed with a faster FSB is that while performance may go up, battery life may go down. For Apple users this means that early adopters of the new MacBook or MacBook Pro won't be too pressured to upgrade again by the end of this year. Of course Apple has this way of making incremental changes irresistible."
Silentwave
Aug 17, 10:18 PM
I use CS2 for camera raw. Right now I am shooting with a fuji finepix S2 pro, but probably going to get the D200 soon. The Canon stuff is nice too, but I haven't tried the Canon raw converter. I love adobe camera raw - it just works for me. I have yet to try aperature but might try to get my hands on it. Camera Raw runs well on the Mac Pro, but like I said 10% faster on the Quad. It doesn't impact me much, and I get to boot windoze to cross test and develop items on a PC for web stuff :)
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.
W. Ademczyk
Aug 27, 02:12 PM
I hate to say it, but I think the chances of Apple dropping the merom chips into laptops before September 5th are pretty slim. It's probably more likely that the waiting times are due to back to school rush shortages; Apple has doubled its laptop market share with the Macbook. http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/7/25/4753
In addition, thinksecret reported earlier this month that we might be seeing an updated case for the MBP. http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0606macpro.html While this would be a good thing, because it alludes to Apple maybe addressing the heat issue, it is pretty unlikely that Apple would start shipping a machine to buyers without diclosing that the case looks different.
Apparently, the September 5th date stems from reports that Apple is scheduled to recieved a massive product shipment from Asia. http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1965 This coincides with other reports of the new Macs being ready "after Labor Day."
It's pretty safe to say that we will be able to get our Merom Macs at the very latest by the second week of September; thus, we will all be able to capitolize on the ipod deal that runs through the 16th. Personally, I think that the likelyhood of time running out on the nano deal is pretty slim because that sale is likely in response to an imminent refresh in the nano's own product line. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
In addition, thinksecret reported earlier this month that we might be seeing an updated case for the MBP. http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0606macpro.html While this would be a good thing, because it alludes to Apple maybe addressing the heat issue, it is pretty unlikely that Apple would start shipping a machine to buyers without diclosing that the case looks different.
Apparently, the September 5th date stems from reports that Apple is scheduled to recieved a massive product shipment from Asia. http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1965 This coincides with other reports of the new Macs being ready "after Labor Day."
It's pretty safe to say that we will be able to get our Merom Macs at the very latest by the second week of September; thus, we will all be able to capitolize on the ipod deal that runs through the 16th. Personally, I think that the likelyhood of time running out on the nano deal is pretty slim because that sale is likely in response to an imminent refresh in the nano's own product line. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:43 AM
I got it...
Octopros :D
Octopros :D
sjo
Aug 11, 03:55 PM
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.
Only if you have an active subscribtion on all of them. That's the number the graph behind the link shows.
BTW, DoCoMo has over 50m subscribers, almost as much as CDMA in the US. And they are much more keen to renew their mobiles in Japan so Apple might make a smart move by making the iPhone available for DoCoMo subscribers before CDMA subscribers.
Only if you have an active subscribtion on all of them. That's the number the graph behind the link shows.
BTW, DoCoMo has over 50m subscribers, almost as much as CDMA in the US. And they are much more keen to renew their mobiles in Japan so Apple might make a smart move by making the iPhone available for DoCoMo subscribers before CDMA subscribers.
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
2IS
Apr 8, 08:24 PM
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business. :p Which is what led to this whole GPU downgrade for Sandy Bridge equipped Macs with IGPs.
Well then allow me to be the broken record...
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
Well then allow me to be the broken record...
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
kdarling
Apr 27, 10:20 AM
Ever been to NTTC Corry?
Oops, you deleted your PS.
No sir, trained at DLI Monterey and Goodfellow AFB. Damn, how come the Navy always has the bases at the nicest spots? :)
Oops, you deleted your PS.
No sir, trained at DLI Monterey and Goodfellow AFB. Damn, how come the Navy always has the bases at the nicest spots? :)
Erasmus
Jul 21, 11:55 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
No comments:
Post a Comment