Hamish
Apr 11, 10:36 PM
Looking forward to the new final cut studio.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
janstett
Sep 15, 07:57 AM
I remember reading a BBC news article the other month about mRAM (or magnetic RAM) which has the same write speeds as RAM, but without its volatility. It doesn't loose it's data when the power is off. Ideal for fast HDDs they say.
Yeah, I think they're calling them "Hybrid drives" where they will have some fast static RAM built into a hard drive and store the most frequently accessed part of the drive in cache on the static RAM.
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
You used to be able to do that with ramdisks, but getting the files onto the ramdisk took more time than just booting from the disk. Sometimes you can force the OS to keep itself in RAM when it's loaded from disk (so the OS won't start swapping itself out when it needs memory), there's a setting for this in Tweak XP.
Yeah, I think they're calling them "Hybrid drives" where they will have some fast static RAM built into a hard drive and store the most frequently accessed part of the drive in cache on the static RAM.
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
You used to be able to do that with ramdisks, but getting the files onto the ramdisk took more time than just booting from the disk. Sometimes you can force the OS to keep itself in RAM when it's loaded from disk (so the OS won't start swapping itself out when it needs memory), there's a setting for this in Tweak XP.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 10:40 AM
I'm a little confused at the magnitude of people's reaction here.
It's Apple. If Apple does something, it's the end of the world. If everyone else does something similar, *shrug*
Apple does well in the market place, so it behooves the tech media to attack Apple as often as their partners wish them to. Standard PR tactics.
It's Apple. If Apple does something, it's the end of the world. If everyone else does something similar, *shrug*
Apple does well in the market place, so it behooves the tech media to attack Apple as often as their partners wish them to. Standard PR tactics.
robwormald
Mar 22, 02:18 PM
What I'm looking forward to the most is playing with the web browsers on these machines. Our internal business applications run either in a JRE or in a web browser - on iPads we run them as full screen web apps. Works great.
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
QCassidy352
Aug 15, 01:12 PM
oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out! :eek:
bob5820
Sep 13, 04:57 PM
if it follows typical intel transitions price point replace. So the same price as woodcrests. They might introduce faster ones though that cost more. We'll see before the end of the year. According to tha Anandtech article its likely that the Clovertown family will be clocked slower then the Woodcrests
p0intblank
Aug 5, 04:50 PM
Just an opinion p0intblank.We all have em :)
Oh, I know. Don't think I was shooting yours down or anything. I'm all for listening to others and hearing what they think.
Oh, I know. Don't think I was shooting yours down or anything. I'm all for listening to others and hearing what they think.
jll62
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
The vast majority of consumers won't be basing their tablet purchase on specs.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
The vast majority of consumers won't be basing their tablet purchase on specs.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 04:20 AM
I'm sorry, Bill, but your logic has one big flaw.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate. I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
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. My mom used to counsel same-sex-attracted people when she was a nurse and a counselor at a local drug rehabilitation hospital. Her patients liked her, even after he told them that she thought same-sex sex was never okay. They respected her for her honesty. She was brave enough to tell them some things that they didn't want to hear, because she knew that they needed to hear them. Political correctness is evil when it prevents people from saying things that others need to hear for their own good.
In about 1962, Pope John XXII refused to condemn heresies because he thought mercy was better than severity. But he ignored that people sometimes need to be severe to show their love for others. I'm all for tact and gentleness. But I'm against political correctness that protects feeling at the expense of the potentially offended person's physical, psychological, or moral wellbeing. John XXIII was like a doctor who would say, "I don't want to talk about killing bacteria, cancer cells, and so on. I think I should just promote good heath." But what if the patient died because, say, the doctor refused to do chemo or wouldn't tell a patient that without it, she would die of cancer? Is the doctor being kind? Is he being negligent? If he doesn't care enough about his patients to tell them bad news that they need to hear, he should stop seeing them.
Here at the board, the others are welcome believe anything they want to believe about me. If I make some enemies by merely saying what I believe, then that gives me a chance to love them. But I refuse to be politically correct.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate. I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
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. My mom used to counsel same-sex-attracted people when she was a nurse and a counselor at a local drug rehabilitation hospital. Her patients liked her, even after he told them that she thought same-sex sex was never okay. They respected her for her honesty. She was brave enough to tell them some things that they didn't want to hear, because she knew that they needed to hear them. Political correctness is evil when it prevents people from saying things that others need to hear for their own good.
In about 1962, Pope John XXII refused to condemn heresies because he thought mercy was better than severity. But he ignored that people sometimes need to be severe to show their love for others. I'm all for tact and gentleness. But I'm against political correctness that protects feeling at the expense of the potentially offended person's physical, psychological, or moral wellbeing. John XXIII was like a doctor who would say, "I don't want to talk about killing bacteria, cancer cells, and so on. I think I should just promote good heath." But what if the patient died because, say, the doctor refused to do chemo or wouldn't tell a patient that without it, she would die of cancer? Is the doctor being kind? Is he being negligent? If he doesn't care enough about his patients to tell them bad news that they need to hear, he should stop seeing them.
Here at the board, the others are welcome believe anything they want to believe about me. If I make some enemies by merely saying what I believe, then that gives me a chance to love them. But I refuse to be politically correct.
kresh
Nov 28, 10:47 PM
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net. I would no longer buy anything from iTS that is Universal!
Wow, is the Music label the same as the Movie label. I could get all the movies too (to play on my iPod)!
I mean if the royalties are paid when the device is manufactured, there is no need for them to double dip and collect royalties again when I pay for content right? I think it would hold in court!
Wow, is the Music label the same as the Movie label. I could get all the movies too (to play on my iPod)!
I mean if the royalties are paid when the device is manufactured, there is no need for them to double dip and collect royalties again when I pay for content right? I think it would hold in court!
shawnce
Aug 6, 02:28 PM
So, you're comparing a mature product (Tiger) to one that's still in beta and which by all accounts has plenty of outstanding issues before it's ever released (Vista)? Ok soon lets compare Leopard and Vista.
The fact of the matter is that Vista has to be functionally complete now (or else they are going to miss shipping dates by a large margin)... so the functionality you see is basically what you are going to get. Put aside the crashes, performance issues, bugs and you can get a good sense for how it will operate when it is released.
Really MS has taken the transparency and visual effect so far that they are distracting and degrade usability (thank fully you can adjust them to some extent)... they are doing just like Apple did in Mac OS X 10.0 (transparent window title bars when in background, overly transparent menus, etc.) but thankfully Apple has been refining it for the last few years for looks and usability.
Also the new user security mode is going to be a big nightmare for folks until 3rd party software catches up with it... currently in my average usage it is always bouncing to out the full screen overlay with security confirmation dialog... I am at the point I don't read them any more since the disrupt what I am trying to do. (We have several developers in house struggling to keep up with changes and bugs in the beta, making it hard to get ready for Vista).
In the end Vista will be a good OS but it is going to be a little painful for the Windows world for the next year or so (into 2008).
The fact of the matter is that Vista has to be functionally complete now (or else they are going to miss shipping dates by a large margin)... so the functionality you see is basically what you are going to get. Put aside the crashes, performance issues, bugs and you can get a good sense for how it will operate when it is released.
Really MS has taken the transparency and visual effect so far that they are distracting and degrade usability (thank fully you can adjust them to some extent)... they are doing just like Apple did in Mac OS X 10.0 (transparent window title bars when in background, overly transparent menus, etc.) but thankfully Apple has been refining it for the last few years for looks and usability.
Also the new user security mode is going to be a big nightmare for folks until 3rd party software catches up with it... currently in my average usage it is always bouncing to out the full screen overlay with security confirmation dialog... I am at the point I don't read them any more since the disrupt what I am trying to do. (We have several developers in house struggling to keep up with changes and bugs in the beta, making it hard to get ready for Vista).
In the end Vista will be a good OS but it is going to be a little painful for the Windows world for the next year or so (into 2008).
Popeye206
Apr 11, 12:44 PM
If true, this means that Apple has raised the white flag and accepted the defeat that Android has given to them. Not caring about the power of the hardware relative to others in the marketplace is a hallmark of a niche ecosystem.
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
LOL! You kill me! Either you have a tremendous amount of sarcasm or you really lost and don't see the bigger picture.
BTW... do you just want a Android only choice? And for real... packing features in a product does not make it good. There's something to be said for good design, overall usability and product longevity.
What do you think Apple should do? Just whip out models of new iPhones like Moto, HTC and others do as they all compete against themselves at no margin? How long do you think that is going to last before there are casualties?
Don't get me wrong... Android has done well, but I would guess most of the market share they are gaining is not from Apple, but from Blackberry, Microsoft, and Symbian based devices. They are the ones who need to toss in the white flag.
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
LOL! You kill me! Either you have a tremendous amount of sarcasm or you really lost and don't see the bigger picture.
BTW... do you just want a Android only choice? And for real... packing features in a product does not make it good. There's something to be said for good design, overall usability and product longevity.
What do you think Apple should do? Just whip out models of new iPhones like Moto, HTC and others do as they all compete against themselves at no margin? How long do you think that is going to last before there are casualties?
Don't get me wrong... Android has done well, but I would guess most of the market share they are gaining is not from Apple, but from Blackberry, Microsoft, and Symbian based devices. They are the ones who need to toss in the white flag.
lieb39
Aug 7, 06:49 PM
...
If time machine lets you preview the contents of documents before you restore them, instead of going restore... is it that one? nope, try this one? nope... ah here we go found it. then hot damm thats a slick new feature
Well it looked like just a normal finder window in the Quicktime on the Apple site, so I'm sure you could open it, explore it, all that, before restoring..
Cheers!
If time machine lets you preview the contents of documents before you restore them, instead of going restore... is it that one? nope, try this one? nope... ah here we go found it. then hot damm thats a slick new feature
Well it looked like just a normal finder window in the Quicktime on the Apple site, so I'm sure you could open it, explore it, all that, before restoring..
Cheers!
JohnnyQuest
Apr 7, 11:09 PM
I really hate Best Buy. But unfortunately, there's no Apple Store in my town.
iliketyla
Mar 31, 02:39 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
From my own personal experience, I know very few people that have Android phones that took advantage of the BOGO deal.
I personally bought this Android phone because I read reviews, and it was the best lower end phone, and I can't justify spending an enormous amount of money on something I'll upgrade in a year.
I used an iPhone 3GS for a year, and I don't miss it.
It's a very nice phone, but the features that I can use on Android more than make up for any advantages the iPhone had.
Once again, this is just MY opinion, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
From my own personal experience, I know very few people that have Android phones that took advantage of the BOGO deal.
I personally bought this Android phone because I read reviews, and it was the best lower end phone, and I can't justify spending an enormous amount of money on something I'll upgrade in a year.
I used an iPhone 3GS for a year, and I don't miss it.
It's a very nice phone, but the features that I can use on Android more than make up for any advantages the iPhone had.
Once again, this is just MY opinion, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
azzurri000
Sep 18, 11:30 PM
I went ahead and bought my MacBook Pro because I can't do my schoolwork without a laptop. So, I'm really not paying much attention these days about future announcements :)
Is that irony?
I'm also a student, and I don't think I could wait any longer than a month for these long-overdue MacBook Pros to ship... so a possible late November arrival is worrying to say the least.
Is that irony?
I'm also a student, and I don't think I could wait any longer than a month for these long-overdue MacBook Pros to ship... so a possible late November arrival is worrying to say the least.
j26
Nov 29, 06:23 AM
Apple has sold what, 70m (ish) iPods since launch. What's it running at now about 10 a year? That's about $10m in revenue Universal could get a year.
If they walk they are losing a share in over 1bn songs translating to a whatever share they can get (say 10%), which would translate to $65m in revenue (2/3 of 10% of 1bn)**
Universal would be killing the golden goose if they were to try to force Apples hand, and Apple said "feck off then and take yer shite music with ye"
Apple on the other hand only stand to lose maybe $4-5m.
** the assumptions may be way off, but it's illustrative anyway. Feel free to correct the numbers
If they walk they are losing a share in over 1bn songs translating to a whatever share they can get (say 10%), which would translate to $65m in revenue (2/3 of 10% of 1bn)**
Universal would be killing the golden goose if they were to try to force Apples hand, and Apple said "feck off then and take yer shite music with ye"
Apple on the other hand only stand to lose maybe $4-5m.
** the assumptions may be way off, but it's illustrative anyway. Feel free to correct the numbers
lfc
Apr 6, 11:06 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
Umm... You do realise clock speed is not everything don't you?
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
You definitely dont know what your talking about.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
Umm... You do realise clock speed is not everything don't you?
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
You definitely dont know what your talking about.
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
cmaier
Apr 19, 10:46 PM
But App Store is like Coke, right? Of course it's ok if Apple does it. They've becoming one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. Maybe Steve suffers from extreme paranoia?
No. "App Store" wouldn't qualify as a famous mark, I should think.
Here's a website that lists some factors:
http://www.quizlaw.com/trademarks/what_is_a_famous_trademark.php
No. "App Store" wouldn't qualify as a famous mark, I should think.
Here's a website that lists some factors:
http://www.quizlaw.com/trademarks/what_is_a_famous_trademark.php
MacRumors
Apr 6, 01:20 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/motorola-xoom-tablet-sales-approximately-100000-units-so-far/)
Business Insider reports (http://www.businessinsider.com/motorola-xoom-sales-2011-4) on a research note from Deutsche Bank estimating sales of Motorola's Android-based Xoom tablet at only about 100,000 units since its late February launch, based on Android developer statistics (http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html) showing that only 0.2% of Android devices accessing the Android Market during the second half of March had the Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" operating system installed. The Xoom is currently the only device on the market running Honeycomb.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/06/141346-android_platform_breakdown_040111_500.jpg
Business Insider reports (http://www.businessinsider.com/motorola-xoom-sales-2011-4) on a research note from Deutsche Bank estimating sales of Motorola's Android-based Xoom tablet at only about 100,000 units since its late February launch, based on Android developer statistics (http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html) showing that only 0.2% of Android devices accessing the Android Market during the second half of March had the Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" operating system installed. The Xoom is currently the only device on the market running Honeycomb.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/06/141346-android_platform_breakdown_040111_500.jpg
styles111
Jun 15, 02:07 PM
To follow up to my last post, just got a call from my local Radio Shack and got my PIN.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
Raid
Apr 29, 12:46 PM
So what? Who said liberals never partake in name calling? You claimed that liberals do more name calling. You want me to go dig out examples of name-calling done by conservative voices such as Limbaugh, Beck, etc.?
I should add Trump to that list to keep this somewhat on track with the subject of this thread.
Hey now don't go and try to get this thread back on track! ;)
You could, cite name-calling examples on both sides but it really shouldn't be about who started it, or who does it more; really it should be more about ending it and talking about the issues... but then we'd be in danger of actually progressing.
I should add Trump to that list to keep this somewhat on track with the subject of this thread.
Hey now don't go and try to get this thread back on track! ;)
You could, cite name-calling examples on both sides but it really shouldn't be about who started it, or who does it more; really it should be more about ending it and talking about the issues... but then we'd be in danger of actually progressing.
samcraig
Apr 27, 10:10 AM
Yes, the Apple fans were more correct than the anti-Apple folks. What we heard over the last week is that your personal data was being sent to Apple (it wasn't), that Apple is evil (it isn't), that Steve Jobs is lying (he isn't).
Strip away the hyperbole and you have a bug that is going to be fixed, data that is anonymized and not trackable to you unless you physically possess someone's Mac, and a story that made news last year and should never have gotten so big this time around. So yes, the Apple fans were more correct while the hype machine was wrong (as usual).
Maybe that's what you heard.
I heard that the database couldn't be user purged (easily)
The the database kept data from Day one
and that Location services being turned off didn't change the recording of the data.
Apple fans were "more correct". Wow. Ok - if you say so.... and if it helps you sleep at night
Strip away the hyperbole and you have a bug that is going to be fixed, data that is anonymized and not trackable to you unless you physically possess someone's Mac, and a story that made news last year and should never have gotten so big this time around. So yes, the Apple fans were more correct while the hype machine was wrong (as usual).
Maybe that's what you heard.
I heard that the database couldn't be user purged (easily)
The the database kept data from Day one
and that Location services being turned off didn't change the recording of the data.
Apple fans were "more correct". Wow. Ok - if you say so.... and if it helps you sleep at night
No comments:
Post a Comment