Steve Jobs passed away- 1955-2011

Share your thoughts and condolences for Steve Jobs. Like and share your thoughts here..

Steven Paul “Steve” Jobs – the Apple and world icon of innovation has passed away after 8 years suffering of cancer.

In mid-2004, Jobs announced to his employees that he had been diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in his pancreas.

The prognosis for pancreatic cancer is usually very poor; Jobs, however, stated that he had a rare, far less aggressive type known as islet cell neuroendocrine tumor. After initially resisting the idea of conventional medical intervention and embarking on a special diet to thwart the disease, Jobs underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy (or "Whipple procedure") in July 2004 that appeared to successfully remove the tumor. Jobs apparently did not require nor receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

During Jobs' absence, Timothy D. Cook, head of worldwide sales and operations at Apple, ran the company.

The world mourn for the genius

World and business leaders have been paying tribute to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who has died at the age of 56 from pancreatic cancer.

US President Barack Obama and Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev said Mr Jobs had changed the world.

Microsoft's Bill Gates said it had been "an insanely great honour" to work with him. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg remembered his "mentor and friend".

The Twitter microblog site struggled to cope with the traffic of tributes.

Apple itself said Mr Jobs had been "the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives" and had made the world "immeasurably better".

Thousands of celebrities and ordinary people went on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to record their tributes and memories of the man behind products such as the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad.

The death of Mr Jobs could create a record for Twitter traffic.

Thousands of people all over the world have also been attending Apple stores to leave flowers, notes, and apples with a bite taken from them to mimic the company's logo.

Apple's leading rivals such as Microsoft, Google, Sony and Samsung all chipped in with glowing tributes

GS Choi, chief executive of Samsung, which is embroiled in a major court battle with Apple on patents, said Mr. Jobs was an "innovative spirit" who "introduced numerous revolutionary changes to the information technology industry".

In his statement, Bill Gates said: "The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come. For those of us lucky enough to get to work with him, it's been an insanely great honor."

Mr. Zuckerberg wrote on Facebook: "Steve, thank you for being a mentor and a friend. Thanks for showing that what you build can change the world. I will miss you."

His comments were "liked" by more than 200,000 people within hours.

In his own tweet, Barack Obama wrote: "There may be no greater tribute to Steve's success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented."

Web users in China have reportedly posted almost 35 million online tributes.

Tim Cook, who was made Apple's CEO after Mr Jobs stood down in August, said his predecessor had left behind "a company that only he could have built, and his spirit will forever be the foundation of Apple".

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said: "Steve Jobs transformed the way we work and play; a creative genius who will be sorely missed."

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said the US had "lost a genius who will be remembered with Edison and Einstein".

People also gathered outside Mr Jobs' home in California's Silicon Valley to lay floral wreaths, while flags were flown at half mast outside the Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California.

A statement from Mr Jobs' family said they were with him when he died peacefully on Wednesday.

"In his public life, Steve was known as a visionary; in his private life, he cherished his family," they said, requesting privacy and thanking those who had "shared their wishes and prayers" during his final year.

Face of Apple

Mr Jobs built a reputation as a forthright and demanding leader who could take niche technologies - such as the mouse and graphical user interface, using onscreen icons rather than text - and make them popular with the general public.

He introduced the colourful iMac computer, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad to the world. His death came just a day after Apple unveiled its latest iPhone 4S model.

With a market value estimated at $351bn (£227bn), Apple became the world's most valuable technology company.

More than almost any other business leader, Mr Jobs was indistinguishable from his company, which he co-founded in the 1970s.

As the face of Apple, he represented its dedication to high-end technology and fashionable design.

And inside the company he exerted a level of influence unheard of in most businesses.

In 2004, Mr. Jobs announced that he was suffering from pancreatic cancer. He had a liver transplant five years later.

In January, he took medical leave, before resigning as CEO in August and handing over his duties to Mr. Cook.

In his resignation letter, Mr. Jobs said: "I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role."

However, Mr. Jobs stayed on as Apple's chairman.

Despite his high profile, he remained fiercely protective of his private life.

He married his wife Laurene in 1991, and the couple had three children.

Mr. Jobs also leaves a daughter from a previous relationship, and as an adult he discovered that he had a biological sister, US novelist Mona Simpson.

Continue reading

West Philippines Sea is not Philippines - South China Sea is not China's Sea

By Huy Duong

It would be rather absurd if England were to try to claim sovereignty over most of the English Channel, Iran the Persian Gulf, Thailand the Gulf of Thailand, Vietnam the Gulf of Tonkin, Japan the Sea of Japan, or Mexico the Gulf of Mexico.

But that is exactly what China is trying to do by claiming most of the South China Sea, a body of water about the size of the Mediterranean Sea bordered by nine nations plus Taiwan, and the main gateway between the Pacific and the Indian Ocean.

Although there are long-standing territorial disputes over the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands, the biggest security risk for the South China Sea is not the conflicting claims over these tiny islands and rocks but China's outright claim to this strategically important body of water.

Most international experts on maritime disputes, including even some Chinese ones, regard China's claim to be inconsistent with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China's claim is represented by the so-called "U-shaped line" or "nine-dashed line" map that depicts a line encircling most of the South China Sea.

This map was first published by the Republic of China in 1948 under the heading "Map of the locations of the South China Sea Islands". The name indicates that it was a map of the islands within the U-shaped line, not a claim to the entire maritime space. At that time international law only allowed a claim of territorial sea up to three nautical miles, beyond which was considered international waters.

For decades, this map has remained obscure. Until now Chinese scholars have disagreed on what the map means and its legal basis. China's own territorial sea declaration in 1958 only claimed 12 nautical miles and declared that international waters separated its mainland and the islands which it claimed. In other words, China's own declaration then affirmed that most of the maritime space within the U-shaped line map was international waters.

With newfound wealth after successful economic reforms launched in the 1980s and more recent rising naval strength, China's territorial ambitions have grown to encompass not just the disputed Paracels and Spratlys but also most of the South China Sea. Consequently, China resurrected the U-shaped line map as if it were a claim to maritime space dating back to 1948, whereas in fact it was a map about the position of islands and by law it could never have been a legitimate claim to maritime space.

In the 1990s, China started to make claims to some oil blocks within the U-shaped line in and near the Nam Con Son Basin between Vietnam and Indonesia. In 2009, China included the U-shaped line map in notes verbales to the United Nations' Commission on the Limit of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to assert its maritime claim. This was the first time China sent the U-shaped line map to an intergovernmental body.

Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines responded with their own notes verbales to the CLCS to reject China's claim and the U-shaped line map. Vietnam's notes maintained that China's claim as represented by the U-shaped line "has no legal, historical or factual basis, therefore is null and void." Indonesia's note said that the U-shaped line map "clearly lacks international legal basis and is tantamount to upset the UNCLOS 1982." The Philippines' note said that China's claim to most of the South China Sea "would have no basis under international law, specifically UNCLOS".

Instead of being deterred, China is becoming more assertive. In March 2011, two Chinese patrol ships threatened to ram a vessel that was carrying out seismic survey at the Reed Bank on behalf of the Philippines. According to the Philippines, the Reed Bank is not part of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) belonging to the Spratlys.

In May 2011, a Chinese maritime survey ship cut the seismic sensor cable of a Vietnamese survey ship operating in an area closer to Vietnam's continental coast than to the disputed Paracels and Spratlys. In June 2011, Chinese fishing boats deliberately ran across the seismic sensor cable of another Vietnamese survey ship which was also operating in an area closer to Vietnam's continental coast than to the disputed Paracels and Spratlys.

Regarding these incidents, on June 27, the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution in which it "deplores the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from China in the South China Sea." The resolution also noted that one of the incidents "occurred within 200 nautical miles of Vietnam, an area recognized as its Exclusive Economic Zone".

In August 2011, the Philippines challenged China to take the dispute to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. China did not accept the challenge, which the Philippines took to underline the fact that China's claim is weak in law.

In the latest episode in September, China warned India that joint exploration with Vietnam in the latter's Blocks 127 and 128 amounted to a violation of China's sovereignty - despite the fact that these blocks were much closer to Vietnam's continental coasts than to the disputed Paracels and Spratlys.

China justified its position by saying that, "The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not entitle any country to extend its exclusive economic zone or continental shelf to the territory of another country." In effect, China is trying to use the "historical claims and rights" argument to negate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

According to international law, no nation can claim Blocks 127 and 128 as its sovereign territory. Legally speaking, as an area submerged under the sea, these blocks are not "susceptible to sovereignty", i.e., they cannot be claimed as the territory of any country. Therefore, Blocks 127 and 128 can only be maritime space governed by international law. According to international law, in 1947 that area was international waters, and today it is part of Vietnam's EEZ.

Regarding the "historical claims and rights" argument, at the Third Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law in August 2011, the Indonesian Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and the European Union obliquely dismissed it as being "at best ridiculous" as follows, ... the "historic claims of historic waters" is problematic for Asia because Asia is a region rich with ancient kingdoms which were both land and maritime powers. Srivijaya Kingdom which has its capital in Sumatra island in seventh century ruled many parts of Southeast Asia and spanned its control all the way to Madagascar. For Indonesia to claim waters corresponding to its history would be at best ridiculous.

Clearly, if nations were allowed to use the "historical claims and rights" argument to claim vast swathes of the world's oceans and seas at the expense of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - which stipulates that coastal nations have an EEZ of up to 200 nautical miles - it would make a mockery of the Convention. For example, the "historical claims and rights" argument would allow Britain, which "waved the rules and ruled the waves" far more than China ever did, to claim rights over most of the world's oceans and seas.

Without having the courage of conviction to go to an international court, China relies on using its superior hard and soft powers to press its claim against smaller Southeast Asian countries in the area. Against this pressure, Southeast Asian parties to the dispute need to improve their individual and collective strength but they also need support from major powers, such as the US, India, Japan, Russia and European Union.

For their own sake, the major powers must not abandon the South China Sea to be turned into a Chinese lake and Southeast Asian nations to fall into China's orbit. That would be disastrous not only to the Southeast Asian countries but ultimately also to the major powers themselves and for the legal order over the ocean that the international community has tried so hard to establish since the 1980s.

Huy Duong is a freelance writer. His articles on the South China Sea disputes have appeared on Asia Sentinel, the BBC's website, The Diplomat, Manila Times and VietNam Net. He would like to thank Duat Le, Truong Tran, Dang Vu, Nghia Tran and other friends for valuable comments on this article.

(Copyright 2011 Huy Duong.)

Continue reading