Why not just host extra capacity on s3 or a similar service? There are plenty of ways of handling a surge that doesn't require lots of physical infrastructure. Or just buy infrastructure and reallocate to the next game with the next surge.
In the United States I'd say the issue would be acts authorized at the highest levels which are crimes. For example, our designation of Al Qaeda members as "enemy combatants" denying them both the protections accorded civilians and the protections accorded enemy soldiers under the Geneva convention. That wasn't some rogue officer those were acts, acts that many consider blatant crimes, that go all the way up to the president and congress.
I agree with you the US doesn't need the ICC for rogue Captains. The ICC's impact would be for the Captains who really are following orders.
No they don't have that right. First off Europe is not a single political entity. If Poland objects to what the USA did in Poland that is Poland's obligation. Second, what the USA did they did with the cooperation of the Polish government. If the Netherlands has a problem with what Poland authorized they should take it up with Poland.
And third, even if the USA had done this without Polish permission and this were Poland and not the Netherlands such an act is still aggressive. Poland would and should be walking on eggshells about it. Because we have thousands of years of those sorts of things starting wars.
I agree with you on war apologetics and the USA. But North Korea isn't that sort of case. You got modded a troll probably because you are bring up objections to situations like Iraq in the context of North Korea. In North Korea we have more or less followed the policy you are advocating, and that's not a miner factual problem with your argument.
Now lets deal with the next one:
but actions mostly come from USA
That's simply not true. In general most violent actions are directed against the USA by smaller countries as a way of creating deterrence. You can define the actions against the United States as "defensive" and the actions of the United States as offensive and put them in two separate camps. But if you just count, no by and large the US is generally the one being provoked through violence. In countries that are not attempting to deter the United States, like Europe, most of Latin America most of Africa... the USA is almost never violent. Things are handled diplomatically. The United States has a long track record of preferring diplomatic solutions where they are meaningfully feasible. When they fail over important issues, situations escalate.
As for sanctions there three possibilities in dealing with bad actors:
a) Ignore them b) Sanction them c) Attempt regime change
Generally the US gets criticized regardless of which approach they use. For example the USA is frequently attacked for (a) with respect to Israel, for (b) with respect to Iran and formally Iraq and (c) with respect to Vietnam and Iraq. One of the problems from this sort of unthinking criticism you are engaging in is that by virtue of having power the USA must ultimately decide whether the approach will be (a), (b) or (c).
I imagine the Soviet Union probably played some part in the split as well. Besides at this point the South Koreans are a democracy and do not want reunification. Do you believe in self determination or not?
The ICC claims jurisdiction to enforce the act on statue when US troops are acting under UN mandate. That's been the real problem. Korea being incidentally an example of where the ICC could claim jurisdiction that the USA doesn't recognize.
The reason the US troops remained originally is as a trigger. It was a symbol to the NK government that restarting hostilities with the South would once again bring the USA in.
I agree that at this point those troops are provocative. The problem is withdrawing them is seen by both the North and China as aggressive since it would be seen as one of the steps prior to a major US bombing campaign. So there isn't a good way of pulling them out without freaking the North out. We've tried on several occasions to negotiate a pullout but we haven't been successful. Both South Korea and China are concerned about the USA pulling out without an agreement.
My point is that NK is an example where the United States has allowed a regime it would otherwise have a terrible relationship with to remain in power essentially indefinitely. Where we don't bomb. I didn't say that every country we didn't bomb is like North Korea.
For example, I am from the country that is officially sanctioned to be invaded if an American soldier is ever incarcerated by the ICC for warcrimes.
I have failed to understand why Europeans fail to see how aggressive their court system has become. You aren't alone in seeing it as entirely a natural state of affairs that the Netherlands should have the right to try US officials for stuff they don't like without political implications but no, that's not the way things are done. If country X doesn't recognize country Y's courts as having jurisdiction detaining someone is kidnapping them. Kidnapping current or former governing officials has been an act of war for thousands of years. There is a tendency in Europe to believe because the Europeans have court systems that Europeans like that acts of war aren't acts of war when they commitment them.
The appropriate venue for dealing with issues that arise between the United States and the Netherlands is the US ambassador to the Netherlands, and the Netherlands' ambassador to the United States. Until such time as the US congress recognize the authority of the Netherlands courts to try US soldiers for acts committed in 3rd countries taking a US solider is a political not a judicial act. The ICC does not recognize this, so it becomes the obligation of the host country to make the position clear. All the Service Member Protection Act does is make a clear statement by the US congress they that do not recognize the ICC as a legitimate court. And attempting to enforce the judgements of the ICC are attacks on the United States.
So now the Netherlands knows where they stand. If they choose to enforce the ICC they are attacking the USA. If the ICC takes action and they ignore it, they become hypocrites on issues of Universal Jurisdiction but avoid committing acts of war. Which direction the Netherlands chooses to go is up to the people of the Netherlands.
Creating this situation is to some extent the fault of the United States and to some extent the fault of the Europeans. AFAIK the negotiations broke down with the US' demand for the right of trial by a jury for USA citizens. Had the Europeans yielded on this issue, and had the Senate ratified the treaty we would then have a situation where the ICC was a recognized court and would have the authority it claims to have. Then arresting US soldiers would be a judicial and not a political matter. But no, Europe and the Netherlands don't get to skip the successful negotiations followed by ratification step in establishing a court. Courts are supposed to be agencies of their enforcing governments not fully independent entities. That's the difference between a legal court and a religious court.
Again the USA isn't the one maintaining tensions. I'm not saying there aren't tensions and sanctions are generally part of what having tensions with the USA means.
I assume by "you guys" you mean the United States.
1) The USA was not the one that invaded in 1950, the North did. 2) The USA ain't the one that is maintaining tensions. We've had lots of problems with countries since 1950 and most of them haven't lasted this long.
I know you think its chic to be critical of the USA for everything. But given that neither South Korea nor China can bring North Korea up to even basic levels of decency like feeding their own population, maybe this isn't the best example case. By and large North Korea has acted provocatively trying to create military conflict in the years since the Korean war, to which the USA has not responded forcibly. North Korea is a good example of what the world would look like when the USA does not "bomb everyone".
You forgot Suse and Mageia which remains primarily KDE Educational Linux a Spanish/Portuguese distribution used in Latin America by tens of millions is KDE. Pardus (middle east, primarily Turkey) is KDE. Knoppix is LXDE and an important distribution. Android was never Gnome to begin with. Sailfiish remains Qt based from its MeeGo parent Tizen is Enlightenment. So it isn't quite as unanimous as all that.
RedHat leads the Gnome product so Fedora / RedHat's use isn't surprising. The question was whether RedHat had other people onboard or not.
So excluding RedHat. Sun's Java desktop is mostly dead and openSolaris hasn't switched to Gnome 3 Unity and Cinnamon are forks not the main product. Forks generally do use lots of shared code. The existence of formal forks is the serious problem I was talking about. Gnome may become a family of GUIs and that family may be more popular than KDE but Gnome3 by itself is not ver popular. Also MATE is a 3rd serious fork.
Before Gnome 3 there were people who didn't like Gnome. After Gnome 3 I've seen very few tracking with the main distribution. I wouldn't minimize the problem.
That's what I figured. To get used outside people would need to build another library based on its interfaces... it that was used with a different technology. Hibernate becoming NHiberante might be an example of this in the other direction.
The original was me, "But I have to say I'm hard pressed to think of many (any) open source projects that came out of the.NET community and then spread from there." I specifically there was open source.NET but that the.NET community hadn't played a large role, certainly not consistent with their size, in the wider open source community. And this came in response to the idea that the open source community wasn't strongly supportive of.NET.
Your example is a Microsoft driven product which has 0 impact on the broader open source community. Now, that being said, it is possible it could migrate and become broader in time. But that hasn't happened yet.
It misses the criteria I listed above about coming out of the community. If that were to go the next step and say be available for Apache then yes it would meet the criteria.
That being said, I agree it is nice to see some.NET open source.
Obviously there is some.NET open source. But I have to say I'm hard pressed to think of many (any) open source projects that came out of the.NET community and then spread from there. For example F# is cool but that is fundamentally a port to.NET permanently tied to Visual Studio. Most of Microsoft's rather excellent open source initiatives that aren't specifically exclusively for the Windows stack don't use.NET.
So what has the.NET open source community done in your opinion for which they are being under rewarded?
de Icaza had nothing to do with Gnome 3, he was Gnome 1 and to some extent Gnome 2. The rest is mostly, you liked Gnome 2 and don't really care about Gnome 3 technologies which is different than GP.
As far as divided mindshare. Yes. The Gnome developers never got their broader userbase onboard with the Gnome 3 project, including most tragically Canonical. They've now been forked and lost their slot as the premiere Linux desktop.
Yeah pretty much. LXDE, XFCE, KDE... are much closer to Gnome 1 than Gnome 3. Gnome 1 was meant to be something comparable to KDE, fast, before Qt became the standard widget set for Linux. Gnome 2 was the real product when they had time.
Linux is incredibly popular on: server, embedded, supercomputing, mainframe, as the base for handheld OSes. On all those platforms Linux is at least as fragmented as it is for desktop.
I don't think LSB is the issue, otherwise initiatives like United Linux would have been huge successes over a decade ago. What killed Linux was the fact that Microsoft until last year went after marketshare not maximizing profits. They never allowed a niche to be created for Linux to thrive in the desktop space the way they did on server.
The G5 could have been designed for laptops. But IBM wasn't going to do that without a large order commitment from Apple, and Apple didn't want to hit their balance sheet for billions.
I don't think so. I think Microsoft was looking for a terrific CPU with overall great performance and particular good vector graphics. They didn't need x86 and thus the G5 was overall a terrific fit. I don't think there is anyway Microsoft could have anticipated IBM's internal politics well enough. The XBox contract from the outside probably looked helpful to Apple. Besides Apple was dying at the time from Microsoft's perspective.
I look back at benchmarks. Even if you ignore the far faster bus speeds, since most people didn't have hardware in 2005 to take advantage of these even on a Powermac, the 2.7 ghz g5 was comparable to about a 3.6ghz Xeon.
As far as Powerbook/IMac the G5 was never in a powerbook, the powerbook only ever had the G4.
When they switched to (ugh) Intel, the PPC had fallen behind and there was a similar performance gap.
No. During the time when the PPC had fallen behind Apple stayed with PPC. When the IBM G5 came out, PPCs were much faster than x86 machines. And if you look at the G7s, they still are faster. Apple switched because IBM's low end became focused on the gaming systems like XBox, and Apple didn't have enough pull.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just host extra capacity on s3 or a similar service? There are plenty of ways of handling a surge that doesn't require lots of physical infrastructure. Or just buy infrastructure and reallocate to the next game with the next surge.
In the United States I'd say the issue would be acts authorized at the highest levels which are crimes. For example, our designation of Al Qaeda members as "enemy combatants" denying them both the protections accorded civilians and the protections accorded enemy soldiers under the Geneva convention. That wasn't some rogue officer those were acts, acts that many consider blatant crimes, that go all the way up to the president and congress.
I agree with you the US doesn't need the ICC for rogue Captains. The ICC's impact would be for the Captains who really are following orders.
No they don't have that right. First off Europe is not a single political entity. If Poland objects to what the USA did in Poland that is Poland's obligation. Second, what the USA did they did with the cooperation of the Polish government. If the Netherlands has a problem with what Poland authorized they should take it up with Poland.
And third, even if the USA had done this without Polish permission and this were Poland and not the Netherlands such an act is still aggressive. Poland would and should be walking on eggshells about it. Because we have thousands of years of those sorts of things starting wars.
I would guess a lot of Europeans are going to learn how to use alternative DNSes. Google will be happy.
I agree with you on war apologetics and the USA. But North Korea isn't that sort of case. You got modded a troll probably because you are bring up objections to situations like Iraq in the context of North Korea. In North Korea we have more or less followed the policy you are advocating, and that's not a miner factual problem with your argument.
Now lets deal with the next one:
but actions mostly come from USA
That's simply not true. In general most violent actions are directed against the USA by smaller countries as a way of creating deterrence. You can define the actions against the United States as "defensive" and the actions of the United States as offensive and put them in two separate camps. But if you just count, no by and large the US is generally the one being provoked through violence. In countries that are not attempting to deter the United States, like Europe, most of Latin America most of Africa... the USA is almost never violent. Things are handled diplomatically. The United States has a long track record of preferring diplomatic solutions where they are meaningfully feasible. When they fail over important issues, situations escalate.
As for sanctions there three possibilities in dealing with bad actors:
a) Ignore them
b) Sanction them
c) Attempt regime change
Generally the US gets criticized regardless of which approach they use. For example the USA is frequently attacked for (a) with respect to Israel, for (b) with respect to Iran and formally Iraq and (c) with respect to Vietnam and Iraq. One of the problems from this sort of unthinking criticism you are engaging in is that by virtue of having power the USA must ultimately decide whether the approach will be (a), (b) or (c).
I imagine the Soviet Union probably played some part in the split as well. Besides at this point the South Koreans are a democracy and do not want reunification. Do you believe in self determination or not?
The ICC claims jurisdiction to enforce the act on statue when US troops are acting under UN mandate. That's been the real problem. Korea being incidentally an example of where the ICC could claim jurisdiction that the USA doesn't recognize.
The reason the US troops remained originally is as a trigger. It was a symbol to the NK government that restarting hostilities with the South would once again bring the USA in.
I agree that at this point those troops are provocative. The problem is withdrawing them is seen by both the North and China as aggressive since it would be seen as one of the steps prior to a major US bombing campaign. So there isn't a good way of pulling them out without freaking the North out. We've tried on several occasions to negotiate a pullout but we haven't been successful. Both South Korea and China are concerned about the USA pulling out without an agreement.
My point is that NK is an example where the United States has allowed a regime it would otherwise have a terrible relationship with to remain in power essentially indefinitely. Where we don't bomb. I didn't say that every country we didn't bomb is like North Korea.
For example, I am from the country that is officially sanctioned to be invaded if an American soldier is ever incarcerated by the ICC for warcrimes.
I have failed to understand why Europeans fail to see how aggressive their court system has become. You aren't alone in seeing it as entirely a natural state of affairs that the Netherlands should have the right to try US officials for stuff they don't like without political implications but no, that's not the way things are done. If country X doesn't recognize country Y's courts as having jurisdiction detaining someone is kidnapping them. Kidnapping current or former governing officials has been an act of war for thousands of years. There is a tendency in Europe to believe because the Europeans have court systems that Europeans like that acts of war aren't acts of war when they commitment them.
The appropriate venue for dealing with issues that arise between the United States and the Netherlands is the US ambassador to the Netherlands, and the Netherlands' ambassador to the United States. Until such time as the US congress recognize the authority of the Netherlands courts to try US soldiers for acts committed in 3rd countries taking a US solider is a political not a judicial act. The ICC does not recognize this, so it becomes the obligation of the host country to make the position clear. All the Service Member Protection Act does is make a clear statement by the US congress they that do not recognize the ICC as a legitimate court. And attempting to enforce the judgements of the ICC are attacks on the United States.
So now the Netherlands knows where they stand. If they choose to enforce the ICC they are attacking the USA. If the ICC takes action and they ignore it, they become hypocrites on issues of Universal Jurisdiction but avoid committing acts of war. Which direction the Netherlands chooses to go is up to the people of the Netherlands.
Creating this situation is to some extent the fault of the United States and to some extent the fault of the Europeans. AFAIK the negotiations broke down with the US' demand for the right of trial by a jury for USA citizens. Had the Europeans yielded on this issue, and had the Senate ratified the treaty we would then have a situation where the ICC was a recognized court and would have the authority it claims to have. Then arresting US soldiers would be a judicial and not a political matter. But no, Europe and the Netherlands don't get to skip the successful negotiations followed by ratification step in establishing a court. Courts are supposed to be agencies of their enforcing governments not fully independent entities. That's the difference between a legal court and a religious court.
Again the USA isn't the one maintaining tensions. I'm not saying there aren't tensions and sanctions are generally part of what having tensions with the USA means.
I assume by "you guys" you mean the United States.
1) The USA was not the one that invaded in 1950, the North did.
2) The USA ain't the one that is maintaining tensions. We've had lots of problems with countries since 1950 and most of them haven't lasted this long.
I know you think its chic to be critical of the USA for everything. But given that neither South Korea nor China can bring North Korea up to even basic levels of decency like feeding their own population, maybe this isn't the best example case. By and large North Korea has acted provocatively trying to create military conflict in the years since the Korean war, to which the USA has not responded forcibly. North Korea is a good example of what the world would look like when the USA does not "bomb everyone".
You forgot Suse and Mageia which remains primarily KDE
Educational Linux a Spanish/Portuguese distribution used in Latin America by tens of millions is KDE.
Pardus (middle east, primarily Turkey) is KDE.
Knoppix is LXDE and an important distribution.
Android was never Gnome to begin with.
Sailfiish remains Qt based from its MeeGo parent
Tizen is Enlightenment.
So it isn't quite as unanimous as all that.
RedHat leads the Gnome product so Fedora / RedHat's use isn't surprising. The question was whether RedHat had other people onboard or not.
So excluding RedHat.
Sun's Java desktop is mostly dead and openSolaris hasn't switched to Gnome 3
Unity and Cinnamon are forks not the main product. Forks generally do use lots of shared code. The existence of formal forks is the serious problem I was talking about. Gnome may become a family of GUIs and that family may be more popular than KDE but Gnome3 by itself is not ver popular.
Also MATE is a 3rd serious fork.
Before Gnome 3 there were people who didn't like Gnome. After Gnome 3 I've seen very few tracking with the main distribution. I wouldn't minimize the problem.
That's what I figured. To get used outside people would need to build another library based on its interfaces... it that was used with a different technology. Hibernate becoming NHiberante might be an example of this in the other direction.
The original was me, "But I have to say I'm hard pressed to think of many (any) open source projects that came out of the .NET community and then spread from there." I specifically there was open source .NET but that the .NET community hadn't played a large role, certainly not consistent with their size, in the wider open source community. And this came in response to the idea that the open source community wasn't strongly supportive of .NET.
Your example is a Microsoft driven product which has 0 impact on the broader open source community. Now, that being said, it is possible it could migrate and become broader in time. But that hasn't happened yet.
Did NHiberante come out of the .NET community is used outside?
As far as F# and mono that's good. A strong target app for mono where people on both sides are supportive is useful.
It misses the criteria I listed above about coming out of the community. If that were to go the next step and say be available for Apache then yes it would meet the criteria.
That being said, I agree it is nice to see some .NET open source.
Obviously there is some .NET open source. But I have to say I'm hard pressed to think of many (any) open source projects that came out of the .NET community and then spread from there. For example F# is cool but that is fundamentally a port to .NET permanently tied to Visual Studio. Most of Microsoft's rather excellent open source initiatives that aren't specifically exclusively for the Windows stack don't use .NET.
So what has the .NET open source community done in your opinion for which they are being under rewarded?
de Icaza had nothing to do with Gnome 3, he was Gnome 1 and to some extent Gnome 2. The rest is mostly, you liked Gnome 2 and don't really care about Gnome 3 technologies which is different than GP.
As far as divided mindshare. Yes. The Gnome developers never got their broader userbase onboard with the Gnome 3 project, including most tragically Canonical. They've now been forked and lost their slot as the premiere Linux desktop.
Yeah pretty much. LXDE, XFCE, KDE... are much closer to Gnome 1 than Gnome 3. Gnome 1 was meant to be something comparable to KDE, fast, before Qt became the standard widget set for Linux. Gnome 2 was the real product when they had time.
Linux is incredibly popular on: server, embedded, supercomputing, mainframe, as the base for handheld OSes. On all those platforms Linux is at least as fragmented as it is for desktop.
I don't think LSB is the issue, otherwise initiatives like United Linux would have been huge successes over a decade ago. What killed Linux was the fact that Microsoft until last year went after marketshare not maximizing profits. They never allowed a niche to be created for Linux to thrive in the desktop space the way they did on server.
If you want a Gnome 2 type experience in Gnome 3 and know about Cinnamon I'm hard pressed to understand to what you are objecting to?
The G5 could have been designed for laptops. But IBM wasn't going to do that without a large order commitment from Apple, and Apple didn't want to hit their balance sheet for billions.
I don't think so. I think Microsoft was looking for a terrific CPU with overall great performance and particular good vector graphics. They didn't need x86 and thus the G5 was overall a terrific fit. I don't think there is anyway Microsoft could have anticipated IBM's internal politics well enough. The XBox contract from the outside probably looked helpful to Apple. Besides Apple was dying at the time from Microsoft's perspective.
I look back at benchmarks. Even if you ignore the far faster bus speeds, since most people didn't have hardware in 2005 to take advantage of these even on a Powermac, the 2.7 ghz g5 was comparable to about a 3.6ghz Xeon.
As far as Powerbook/IMac the G5 was never in a powerbook, the powerbook only ever had the G4.
When they switched to (ugh) Intel, the PPC had fallen behind and there was a similar performance gap.
No. During the time when the PPC had fallen behind Apple stayed with PPC. When the IBM G5 came out, PPCs were much faster than x86 machines. And if you look at the G7s, they still are faster. Apple switched because IBM's low end became focused on the gaming systems like XBox, and Apple didn't have enough pull.