or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Nightcrawler

  The 1925 protocol like all of these protocols was clearly meant for relations between states and not for internal conflicts. For these interstate relations all the countries signed the treaty and Syria as well. The other interesting thing regarding that protocol it was meant to only be bounding against states that also ratified the protocol.  Of course because times change as well as necessities, politics, societies, it's understandable and even necessary to reinterpret...
 Ah, ok. But surely during the 80's of last century these laws and treaties existed and yet the US and the western world helped Iraq build up its chemical weapon-arsenal and supported it to be used against Iran. The US back then was actually directly present with military planners and intelligence officers on the battlefield planning strategic bombings against Iran's forces and Iraq conducted these attacks with chemical weapons.  Back then the US argued that using chemical...
NPT deals with nukes and indeed Syria signed and ratified it and is therefore bound by it.   BWC deals with biological weapons and Syria signed but didn't ratify it and is therefore not bound by it.   CWC deals with chemical weapons but Syria neither signed nor ratified it and is therefore not bound by it.
Propaganda was always part of warfare. Assad's regime is using propaganda and I don't blame rebels of using it as well.    What is interesting though is that the use of chemical weapons is being used as an excuse for an intervention, because Assad's regime supposedly crossed a red line. Had Assad's army merely carpet-bombed the area with conventional weapons and killed ten times as many people, it wouldn't have caused the same irritation.   And interesting as...
So let's just assume for this discussion that Assad's army indeed used chemical weapons in Syria and that it was not as alleged by Assad's regime used by the rebels.   The usual way to go about this is to call the UN-security-council and use a resolution to condemn Syria for it and to decide upon sanctions, be it economical or military ones.   Legally states have souvereignity and so as long as a state doesn't attack outside of its country, no other country is...
It's far more likely that Saudi Arabia is behind the military coup in Egypt. Today Saudi Arabia promised 5 billion dollars to the new military regime in Egypt.   While both Saudi Arabia's wahabism and the muslim brotherhood prefer political Islam over secularism, they are nonetheless enemies to each other because of different ideologies.   So in an interesting development obviously Saudi Arabia's regime supported and financed the toppling of a rival islamist...
Update to the problem described in my last posting: I found a solution: After erasing my whole event-folder, and reimporting a previous version I exported a few days ago, and then doing again the last few editings I was able to export the 2 hour file problemfree and Final Cut Pro X 10.0.8 is again as snappy as it ever was.   So obviously it's not the amount of footage (2 hours), but the file-structuring in the event-window that causes the problem. When there are...
  Nice.   But I have to retract a bit my enthusiasism for Final Cut pro X 10.0.8. I ran into some problems with my project. At the start of the project it was snappy and fast as it can be, way faster than with 10.0.3, and more stable, but when I neared the end of the project, it became slower.    Part of the problem is also that whenever I combine two clips into one an additional clip gets generated in the list, so that at the end of the project I have a 2 hour long clip...
I was using Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 as a hobby editor for months without updating it, on my Mac Mini late 2009 with 8 GB Ram.    Last week I updated it straight to 10.0.8 and man what a major change that is, not only a huge amount of new features are in, but most important it is much faster and much more stable than before.    The only regret I have is that I didn't update earlier, a lot of time I could have saved!
Hmm, I thought I read somewhere that Mountain Lion uses a new way to address RAM, ie. that regardless of how many apps are simultaneously open, the RAM gets addressed dynamically and allocated to the processes that need it at that very moment.    So it shouldn't matter anymore how many apps are simultaneously open, the only thing that matters is what processes are running at the moment and how much RAM they need at the moment to get the job done. I think this idea of...
New Posts  All Forums: