myemosoul
Jun 12, 10:32 PM
I sold my 16GB 3GS to my local Radio Shack on 6/9 for 184.13 and I'm currently using my old Motorola Razr V3, I'm preordering on the 15th so i certainly hope that i will be holding an iPhone 4 on the 24th. Since i sold my phone I've gotten two phone calls from the store manager, the first one was to ask if I was ok with him putiing my name and phone number on a list of people planning to pre-order and the second call was to ask for my zip code and he told me that he's almost positive i will be getting one on release day which was reassuring. I'm pretty nervous because pretty much all my experiences with Radio Shack have been sketchy over the years, sometime it's really annoying like when i went in one to buy something stupid like CDR's and the associate said i had to be in their system in order to make the sale which required me giving him my name, number and address which i thought was ridiculous.
So far everything is going well this time, when the 3GS came out ATT wouldn't bump up my upgrade date because my bill was under 100 dollars a month, this time they bumped everyone's upgrade date by 6 months! So instead of the 400 bucks i had to pay for my 3GS i will only pay 200 and with the 185 Radio Shack paid for my 3GS it will only be 15 dollars!
Is it true that i'm going to have to pay the $18 dollar upgrade fee at Radio Shack? Apple never charged me that. Or does it get charged to you cell phone bill?
So if Im getting this right....I bring my 3GS to Radio Shack on the 15th to preorder the iphone 4 and then I have to turn in my old phone in order to get the buy back gift card? But then I would be without a phone for over a week? My local Radio Shack said I could get $256 for my 3gs. But if I read right that price could go down the closer it gets to the ip4 launch?
Thanks
So far everything is going well this time, when the 3GS came out ATT wouldn't bump up my upgrade date because my bill was under 100 dollars a month, this time they bumped everyone's upgrade date by 6 months! So instead of the 400 bucks i had to pay for my 3GS i will only pay 200 and with the 185 Radio Shack paid for my 3GS it will only be 15 dollars!
Is it true that i'm going to have to pay the $18 dollar upgrade fee at Radio Shack? Apple never charged me that. Or does it get charged to you cell phone bill?
So if Im getting this right....I bring my 3GS to Radio Shack on the 15th to preorder the iphone 4 and then I have to turn in my old phone in order to get the buy back gift card? But then I would be without a phone for over a week? My local Radio Shack said I could get $256 for my 3gs. But if I read right that price could go down the closer it gets to the ip4 launch?
Thanks
EGT
Nov 29, 06:28 AM
I was waiting for this to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. (Go Steve!)
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
amin
Sep 14, 10:08 PM
AnandTech is putting a lot of emphasis on this FB-DIMM issue. Their Conroe vs Xeon comparisons are poor given that they maximize the FB-DIMM latency "problem" by using a Mac Pro with only two RAM slots occupied. Seems as though they have an agenda to exaggerate the importance of this technical issue.
DakotaGuy
Aug 11, 02:39 PM
It is more like 81% of the world market.
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
MACMUSO
Aug 18, 08:26 AM
I do find it interested how agressive you are all being regarding G5vsIntel. Any serious mac professional would never run out and buy the first of a new machine expecially with a new chip and new software - complete lunacy - if you value your ability to get work done on a trusted set-up. The intel may be fast but for most professional musicians it's pointless until all of the software is compatible - Native instruments have a long way to go yet and most of us use their apps. And to conclude - having the fastest machine and bragging about it whie dissing the old machine don't make you any good at using it.
RIP.
RIP.
JAT
Mar 22, 02:30 PM
Display playbook = 7"
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
And before calling out irony, "your maths" has an 's' at the end. Thanks for playing.
LOL!!
Way to not understand "numbers". BTW, "maths" is British, "math" is American English.
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
And before calling out irony, "your maths" has an 's' at the end. Thanks for playing.
LOL!!
Way to not understand "numbers". BTW, "maths" is British, "math" is American English.
ergle2
Sep 14, 01:17 PM
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 01:08 PM
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Dude, I think you're right on, and your English is fine (better than some native English speakers who post here, in any case!).
Distribution methods like iTunes make the middle men - the labels - obsolete. It puts artists on a level playing field and coupled with viral marketing like MySpace and such it really spells the end for record labels as we know them.
If anything, all a "record label" might hope to be in the future is a marketing branch that works with an artists and takes a small cut of their sales, not the eight headed monster who controls ever aspect of an artists career - from where they record their album to what sizes their t-shirts come in - that we find today.
And as far as radio goes, it's totally done as a means of making hits. Heck, even next generation satellite radio is struggling - you're telling me terrestrial radio, which is nothing more than 15 minutes of talk and 20 minutes of commercial per hour is deciding what's popular today? Nuh uh. Try: MySpace, commercials, blogs, television series background music, etc. THAT's where today's hits come from.
FM radio and MTV lost all significance ages ago. If you're using them to find hits, maybe you should get off your PowerMac 6100 and upgrade your 14,000 baud modem to a DSL connection so you can visit the real world...
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Dude, I think you're right on, and your English is fine (better than some native English speakers who post here, in any case!).
Distribution methods like iTunes make the middle men - the labels - obsolete. It puts artists on a level playing field and coupled with viral marketing like MySpace and such it really spells the end for record labels as we know them.
If anything, all a "record label" might hope to be in the future is a marketing branch that works with an artists and takes a small cut of their sales, not the eight headed monster who controls ever aspect of an artists career - from where they record their album to what sizes their t-shirts come in - that we find today.
And as far as radio goes, it's totally done as a means of making hits. Heck, even next generation satellite radio is struggling - you're telling me terrestrial radio, which is nothing more than 15 minutes of talk and 20 minutes of commercial per hour is deciding what's popular today? Nuh uh. Try: MySpace, commercials, blogs, television series background music, etc. THAT's where today's hits come from.
FM radio and MTV lost all significance ages ago. If you're using them to find hits, maybe you should get off your PowerMac 6100 and upgrade your 14,000 baud modem to a DSL connection so you can visit the real world...
bretm
Aug 16, 11:59 PM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate.
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate.
satzzz
Aug 19, 05:52 PM
There's allready en new beta of Adobe's Lightroom, Does that one run native under on the intel machines?
trogdor!
Jul 14, 10:20 PM
The current powermac g5's have 1 16x PCI-E slot for the video card along with 2 - 4x and 1 - 8x PCI-E slots. Video cards are about the only thing right now that can even use all 16 lanes of the PCI-E bus. I am not saying future things wont, but thats how it currently stands.
daneoni
Aug 26, 04:13 PM
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
Well unless they use Conroe in iMac thats how it will be. They'll just tell you the new machines are using intel's new Core 2 Duo (64 bit computing) chips. Apple WILL differentiate their pro laptops so the 2.16 & 2.33 GHz combo is a given. Maybe, just maybe, they might bump the mini to 1.83 and 1.66 on its low end. The imacs will use 1.83 & 2.00 there is just no other option apparent to me because the 17" & 20" will also be differentiated. The macbooks may become 2.00GHz only across the board but even that route is questionable.
Well unless they use Conroe in iMac thats how it will be. They'll just tell you the new machines are using intel's new Core 2 Duo (64 bit computing) chips. Apple WILL differentiate their pro laptops so the 2.16 & 2.33 GHz combo is a given. Maybe, just maybe, they might bump the mini to 1.83 and 1.66 on its low end. The imacs will use 1.83 & 2.00 there is just no other option apparent to me because the 17" & 20" will also be differentiated. The macbooks may become 2.00GHz only across the board but even that route is questionable.
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:32 PM
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
That's a really good plan. Wait a few months, let the bugs get ironed out of the new Intel PowerMacs, and then buy something for the same price with better technology.
That's a really good plan. Wait a few months, let the bugs get ironed out of the new Intel PowerMacs, and then buy something for the same price with better technology.
AidenShaw
Aug 27, 08:17 AM
I believe Intel has been having trouble getting the required chipsets out on time to the desktop market.
You can get the chips themselves without much trouble- the retail versions are available at Newegg for the 1.86, 2.13, 2.66, and 2.93 Extreme Core 2 Duo chips, with the sole out of stock chip being the 2.4GHz chip, with an estimated time of arrival being Sept. 1st at 2:30PM.
I was at a local DIY store Saturday, and they had stacks of Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips in all speeds, and lots of mobos with 965 and 975 chipsets.
It would be unusual for that store to have all that kit if there's a supply problem.
http://www.centralcomputer.com/products.asp?pline=HCPUI
You can get the chips themselves without much trouble- the retail versions are available at Newegg for the 1.86, 2.13, 2.66, and 2.93 Extreme Core 2 Duo chips, with the sole out of stock chip being the 2.4GHz chip, with an estimated time of arrival being Sept. 1st at 2:30PM.
I was at a local DIY store Saturday, and they had stacks of Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips in all speeds, and lots of mobos with 965 and 975 chipsets.
It would be unusual for that store to have all that kit if there's a supply problem.
http://www.centralcomputer.com/products.asp?pline=HCPUI
steadysignal
Apr 12, 07:51 AM
i actually dont mind this. i'd like to enjoy the 4 a little longer...
Vegasman
Apr 25, 04:45 PM
Why should Location Services stop your phone from logging cell tower information, the same information your cell company logs?
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
People don't tend to lose their "cell tower information" stored on their carrier's servers too often.
They do however lose their phone in bars (ask Apple), in airports and other places.
And then there is the issue of the iTunes backup....
Imagine for a second you were going through a nasty divorce, and the crazy spouse got the Mac Book Pro as part of some early asset devying up. And just now you are finding out she has the backup of YOUR locations. Those same locations her sneaky lawyer can use to create this wild ass scenario that makes you look bad for reasons A, B and C.
Personal stuff needs to stay private and secure. It's incredible what malicious people can do with it it.
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
People don't tend to lose their "cell tower information" stored on their carrier's servers too often.
They do however lose their phone in bars (ask Apple), in airports and other places.
And then there is the issue of the iTunes backup....
Imagine for a second you were going through a nasty divorce, and the crazy spouse got the Mac Book Pro as part of some early asset devying up. And just now you are finding out she has the backup of YOUR locations. Those same locations her sneaky lawyer can use to create this wild ass scenario that makes you look bad for reasons A, B and C.
Personal stuff needs to stay private and secure. It's incredible what malicious people can do with it it.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 10:02 AM
Notice time. I bags it, I said it first, it's MINE!!!
My only...
My Mactopus...
Mactopus on Google gives you 18 hits
My only...
My Mactopus...
Mactopus on Google gives you 18 hits
aaronb
Sep 19, 10:51 AM
So the Apple crew is simply waiting on marketing until they release these new laptops? Exactly how much marketing needs to go into a slight update? I understand that these are 64-bit processors but the average consumer has no clue what that means to begin with. Waiting for the marketing crew seems really strange to me, should they have not already been ready for this transition by now? Just make a box on the front page that has a picture of a MBP and let it say "the fastest just got faster" or something.
Slim02
Apr 25, 04:47 PM
Normally I would argue that the customer doesn't have a right to a lot of things. But in this case - if you bought a device and it is tracking you (I'm not saying it is or it isn't) - the customer does have a right to know.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
If people learn to read they would know.... Thank to wprowe
http://www.apple.com/privacy/
Look at the section on Location-based Services. You agree that Apple can track your specific location including GPS data.
Quote:
Location-Based Services
To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
Some location-based services offered by Apple, such as the MobileMe “Find My iPhone” feature, require your personal information for the feature to work.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
If people learn to read they would know.... Thank to wprowe
http://www.apple.com/privacy/
Look at the section on Location-based Services. You agree that Apple can track your specific location including GPS data.
Quote:
Location-Based Services
To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
Some location-based services offered by Apple, such as the MobileMe “Find My iPhone” feature, require your personal information for the feature to work.
donlphi
Nov 28, 11:04 PM
Universal has already stated that half of the money will be going to the artists.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
Willis
Aug 26, 05:43 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
no.. what it means is that the chip is 20% more efficient using the same amount of power... Some have said that the chips do run a bit cooler because they are more efficient, but until they come out in the MBP... who knows?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
no.. what it means is that the chip is 20% more efficient using the same amount of power... Some have said that the chips do run a bit cooler because they are more efficient, but until they come out in the MBP... who knows?
0racle
Mar 31, 04:31 PM
Oh, then I can take the Honeycomb source code and do whatever I want with it?
Oh, wait, I can't? Then how doesn't this make Android 'closed source'?
Sure, just buy a Honeycomb powered device. Until then Google has no legal requirement to let you have the GPL portions of source. As for the rest, it is licensed under an Apache License, which does not require Google release the source at all but does allow a user to modify and redistribute what they do have.
FOSS does not mean they have to put the source out in the open.
Oh, wait, I can't? Then how doesn't this make Android 'closed source'?
Sure, just buy a Honeycomb powered device. Until then Google has no legal requirement to let you have the GPL portions of source. As for the rest, it is licensed under an Apache License, which does not require Google release the source at all but does allow a user to modify and redistribute what they do have.
FOSS does not mean they have to put the source out in the open.
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.
paulvee
Aug 18, 06:45 PM
My 3.0's shipping date just changed - for no obvious reason - from 8/20 to 9/19. One month. Clearly, something just got snagged in the supply chain.
Anyone else have this?
Anyone else have this?
No comments:
Post a Comment