Macnoviz
Jul 22, 03:03 AM
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.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
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.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
claus1225
Mar 31, 05:48 PM
I used to have a friend who would spend days tweaking the LINUX OS code so that his browser would look super duper cool.
How many people like that do you know?
How many people like that do you know?
DStaal
Sep 13, 11:12 AM
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
Great. Um... What's their patent licensing scheme on this? (Since they proudly announce they've patented parts of it...)
Great. Um... What's their patent licensing scheme on this? (Since they proudly announce they've patented parts of it...)
Thomas Veil
Apr 28, 05:46 AM
I lost it a long time ago. Trump is an asshat that should just shut the **** up and go back to diddling eastern european models and building casinos (is that christian right compliant I wonder?).But of course today, instead of looking embarrassed and admitting he was wrong, he's "taking credit" for something. Not sure exactly what.
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 :/
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 04:03 PM
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq?
American assets and security are deeply entwined with Nato. An emboldened Gaddafi would encourage the continued use of repression across the region, thus destabilising it even more. He would also probably renew his threats towards the West, bearing in mind the downing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gaddafi was also actively and genuinely pursuing weapons of mass destruction until the Gulf War bought him to heel.
These are just a few reasons that immediately come to mind from someone with only a surface reading of media that aren't parroting the conservative line, you should try it some time. I'm sure those who know more about the geopolitics of the region can outline more...
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
As for asking why not North Korea, I'm staggered you could even make a nonsensical comparison. A nuclear-armed nation bordering China?
"It is in America’s national interests to participate . . . because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that’s going through great changes," Obama said
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/03/23/obama_insists_actions_in_libya_serve_us_interests/
Translated: Above all, we want an arc of governmental and societal stability from North Africa to Afghanistan in order to protect oil supplies and our commitments to Israel.
What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy.
Even though that philosophy might be bereft of any factual basis? You have an important lesson in life ahead of you:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
American assets and security are deeply entwined with Nato. An emboldened Gaddafi would encourage the continued use of repression across the region, thus destabilising it even more. He would also probably renew his threats towards the West, bearing in mind the downing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gaddafi was also actively and genuinely pursuing weapons of mass destruction until the Gulf War bought him to heel.
These are just a few reasons that immediately come to mind from someone with only a surface reading of media that aren't parroting the conservative line, you should try it some time. I'm sure those who know more about the geopolitics of the region can outline more...
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
As for asking why not North Korea, I'm staggered you could even make a nonsensical comparison. A nuclear-armed nation bordering China?
"It is in America’s national interests to participate . . . because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that’s going through great changes," Obama said
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/03/23/obama_insists_actions_in_libya_serve_us_interests/
Translated: Above all, we want an arc of governmental and societal stability from North Africa to Afghanistan in order to protect oil supplies and our commitments to Israel.
What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy.
Even though that philosophy might be bereft of any factual basis? You have an important lesson in life ahead of you:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
iJon
Apr 5, 05:08 PM
I have a friend who is attending NAB next week was was told by a friend who has a booth there that Apple has arranged for lots of training sessions, more training sessions then they have usually have had in the past.
Considering Final Cut Studio is a bit outdated I would presume we will see an announcement next week.
Considering Final Cut Studio is a bit outdated I would presume we will see an announcement next week.
darkplanets
Mar 31, 06:01 PM
"We have no idea if it will even work on phones."
Um, so rather than find out, let's just not release it so we never know. That's an awesome decision. Way to take a chance there Google.
On the same note, I'm not sure if I can run the trail by my house in under 10 minutes, so I'm not even going to try.
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
Um, so rather than find out, let's just not release it so we never know. That's an awesome decision. Way to take a chance there Google.
On the same note, I'm not sure if I can run the trail by my house in under 10 minutes, so I'm not even going to try.
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
darkplanets
Mar 31, 10:56 PM
You mean AntennaGates 1 & 2, iOS 4 on iPhone 3G, the light bleeding on the iPads before shipping, the Macbook Airs crashing when using iTunes aren't examples of Apple cutting corners to get a product to release? I will buy Mac probably for the rest of my life so long as the company is in business and putting out great products with great operating systems.
And they didn't spin it perfectly. Steve Jobs told consumers they were holding the phone wrong and pretended the problem would go away.
I feel like Apple fails more on the hardware front than the software front, especially with the iDevices. Regardless, both companies have flaws, but having your next gen OS NOT work on phones is a big uh-oh. Obviously they'll optimize it; perhaps they'll skip honeycomb for phones, and then come out with a unified "faster" approach for both tablets and phones.
And they didn't spin it perfectly. Steve Jobs told consumers they were holding the phone wrong and pretended the problem would go away.
I feel like Apple fails more on the hardware front than the software front, especially with the iDevices. Regardless, both companies have flaws, but having your next gen OS NOT work on phones is a big uh-oh. Obviously they'll optimize it; perhaps they'll skip honeycomb for phones, and then come out with a unified "faster" approach for both tablets and phones.
bibbz
Jun 12, 08:30 AM
Been skimming over 4 pages here so
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
Yes, whole process takes less than 5 minutes.
You come in tell us you want to trade in
We log in and appraise it.
Tell you the appraisal.
You approve or decline.
If you approve, we then hit accept and generate a shipping label and some bar codes with a sku number, and amount of credit.
We put your old iphone in a box slap the label on it and put it to the side.
We then ring up whatever you are wanting to purchase.
Scan the sku that tells the computer its about to have an amount scanned.
Scan the amount.
Instant Happiness!
If your total ticket is more than the appraisal it removes the appraised amount, if its less we apply the rest to a gift card.
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
Yes, whole process takes less than 5 minutes.
You come in tell us you want to trade in
We log in and appraise it.
Tell you the appraisal.
You approve or decline.
If you approve, we then hit accept and generate a shipping label and some bar codes with a sku number, and amount of credit.
We put your old iphone in a box slap the label on it and put it to the side.
We then ring up whatever you are wanting to purchase.
Scan the sku that tells the computer its about to have an amount scanned.
Scan the amount.
Instant Happiness!
If your total ticket is more than the appraisal it removes the appraised amount, if its less we apply the rest to a gift card.
rdowns
Apr 27, 04:41 PM
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/avatar_2961.gif
Link (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/franklin-graham-obama-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy-theory)
The evangelical son of one of America's most famous evangelists says that President Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to become part of the US government and influence administration decisions.
In an interview last week with Newsmax.com, a conservative website (that pushes the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya conspiracy theory), [see clarification at the end of the article] Franklin Graham, an evangelist like his father, Billy Graham, claimed that the fundamentalist Islamic political group has burrowed into the Obama administration and is shaping US foreign policy. Sounding a bit like Glenn Beck, Graham explained:
The Muslim Brotherhood is very strong and active in our country. It's infiltrated every level of our government. Right now we have many of these people that are advising the US military and State Department on how to respond in the Middle East, and it's like asking a fox, like a farmer asking a fox, "How do I protect my henhouse from foxes?" We've brought in Muslims to tell us how to make policy toward Muslim countries. And many of these people we've brought in, I'm afraid, are under the Muslim Brotherhood.
Link (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/franklin-graham-obama-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy-theory)
The evangelical son of one of America's most famous evangelists says that President Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to become part of the US government and influence administration decisions.
In an interview last week with Newsmax.com, a conservative website (that pushes the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya conspiracy theory), [see clarification at the end of the article] Franklin Graham, an evangelist like his father, Billy Graham, claimed that the fundamentalist Islamic political group has burrowed into the Obama administration and is shaping US foreign policy. Sounding a bit like Glenn Beck, Graham explained:
The Muslim Brotherhood is very strong and active in our country. It's infiltrated every level of our government. Right now we have many of these people that are advising the US military and State Department on how to respond in the Middle East, and it's like asking a fox, like a farmer asking a fox, "How do I protect my henhouse from foxes?" We've brought in Muslims to tell us how to make policy toward Muslim countries. And many of these people we've brought in, I'm afraid, are under the Muslim Brotherhood.
skunk
Mar 4, 05:15 PM
Woof. Those guys are hot. :cool:Misattributed.
realitymonkey
Apr 6, 02:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Really what sort of clients ?
Some people do more than use Final Cut for making YouTube videos. FYI. :rolleyes:
Yup I know especially considering I have nearly 12 years in broadcast TV delivering to every major channel in both the UK and US.
Really what sort of clients ?
Some people do more than use Final Cut for making YouTube videos. FYI. :rolleyes:
Yup I know especially considering I have nearly 12 years in broadcast TV delivering to every major channel in both the UK and US.
Thunderhawks
Apr 6, 02:25 PM
Motorola not selling any units of a crappy product? Huh... who'd have thought.
No need to brag IMO and did you really try a Xoom and put it through it's paces?
I didn't, but tried an ipad 1 and it wasn't doing all I would want it for, plus I never buy a first gen Apple product. (That little rule has served me well since 1984)
Apple is waaayyyyyyy ahead at the moment and the copy cats are playing catch up.
But, I like that there will be a race forcing each manufacturer to make the product better and better.
While Apple is not ignoring what the competition does, their philosophy of making their own products better and better seems to be successful.
So, why change that formula or shake in your boots , just because somebody launches a new copy?
No need to brag IMO and did you really try a Xoom and put it through it's paces?
I didn't, but tried an ipad 1 and it wasn't doing all I would want it for, plus I never buy a first gen Apple product. (That little rule has served me well since 1984)
Apple is waaayyyyyyy ahead at the moment and the copy cats are playing catch up.
But, I like that there will be a race forcing each manufacturer to make the product better and better.
While Apple is not ignoring what the competition does, their philosophy of making their own products better and better seems to be successful.
So, why change that formula or shake in your boots , just because somebody launches a new copy?
soldierblue
Apr 20, 02:51 PM
Apple filed similar suits again HTC and Nokia last spring. You'll notice that the ITC is not favoring Apple's claims.
alent1234
Mar 23, 08:32 AM
LOL what?
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
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 :/
takao
Dec 1, 12:46 PM
the difficulty of the special stages/licenses tests is varying a lot .. on some of the 'b'-license tests i had to try 10 times to even get a silver medal edging out those 0.010 of a second and on the 'a' license tests i managed to get 4 gold ratings on the first try and once beating the needed time by more than half a second
as for the second top gear challenge... for me it's next to impossible ... your lotus seem to have tires which seem to slide around corners much more and the AI somehow manages to break much, much, MUCH harder than you can:
i was driving along around 40 meters behind one and went on full brakes when i saw their braking lights and still got disqualified for slamming into their back like a madman ... what gives
i found the first n�rburgring specials much easier than the first top gear challenge
after trying out the nascar challenges: :confused:... honestly they should have rather spent their money on getting more recent street cars ... thanks for having 10+ premium nascar cars :rolleyes:
as for the second top gear challenge... for me it's next to impossible ... your lotus seem to have tires which seem to slide around corners much more and the AI somehow manages to break much, much, MUCH harder than you can:
i was driving along around 40 meters behind one and went on full brakes when i saw their braking lights and still got disqualified for slamming into their back like a madman ... what gives
i found the first n�rburgring specials much easier than the first top gear challenge
after trying out the nascar challenges: :confused:... honestly they should have rather spent their money on getting more recent street cars ... thanks for having 10+ premium nascar cars :rolleyes:
macfan881
Nov 12, 12:21 PM
http://www.viddler.com/explore/PSBlogEU/videos/858/
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 04:43 AM
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
See, that's exactly the same thing I said. And see, that's exactly what the SB + Intel 3000 HD solution does not do. :rolleyes:
Look, you're saying the same thing I am, you just don't want to agree that the Intel 3000 HD solution is sub-par for OpenCL, a big feature Apple pushed with Snow Leopard. Stop being obtuse. Right now, SB does not run OpenCL code on a DSP or anything else, it runs on it the CPU, defeating the whole purpose.
nVidia 320M si about 20W, so they can use 17W processors on 11,6" and 25W processors on 13", with an increased battery life on both models.
You're forgetting that the 320m is more than just a graphics processor. SB still requires a south bridge which will also have a power rating.
See, that's exactly the same thing I said. And see, that's exactly what the SB + Intel 3000 HD solution does not do. :rolleyes:
Look, you're saying the same thing I am, you just don't want to agree that the Intel 3000 HD solution is sub-par for OpenCL, a big feature Apple pushed with Snow Leopard. Stop being obtuse. Right now, SB does not run OpenCL code on a DSP or anything else, it runs on it the CPU, defeating the whole purpose.
nVidia 320M si about 20W, so they can use 17W processors on 11,6" and 25W processors on 13", with an increased battery life on both models.
You're forgetting that the 320m is more than just a graphics processor. SB still requires a south bridge which will also have a power rating.
depperl
Aug 7, 04:30 PM
if leopard is not enough here's some more new features: Leopard-Server (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/)
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
Brandon4692
Jun 22, 07:03 PM
Yes Brandon they received them in store today. My buddy was able to grab two from the local store that did not generate any PINs so I will be getting mine Thursday morning now. Radio Shack is also giving $20 Gift Cards to use towards accessories at the time of purchase in this area.
Ugh! Lucky!! I think I'm going to just keep calling my local radioshacks and head to one at least an hour before they open on Thursday!
Ugh! Lucky!! I think I'm going to just keep calling my local radioshacks and head to one at least an hour before they open on Thursday!
bokdol
Aug 18, 09:21 AM
If one were to buy a mac pro now, is the processor upgradeable to Clovertown in the future, or is that not really worth it even if it is, because you would need a faster FSB, meaning a new logic board, to take advantage of its power?
i think it is socket 775 or what ever. and if clovertown is pin compatable it will work. i think the processor will have to deal with the slower bus. as long as it is pin compatible.
i think it is socket 775 or what ever. and if clovertown is pin compatable it will work. i think the processor will have to deal with the slower bus. as long as it is pin compatible.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
0 comments:
Post a Comment