danielespejo
Apr 5, 10:59 PM
sorry but that's not the case. While some contend it's jaw-dropping, that's only because they're stacking it up against what FCS is currently.
.....
While some may find the new FCS exciting, and it does have some bells and whistles, it's typical Apple doing an incremental bump to keep up with what others are doing. Sad really.
Which 'new FCS' are you speaking about? Are you referring to the version that will allegedly be released at NAB? If so, how did you see it? You must be important!
.....
While some may find the new FCS exciting, and it does have some bells and whistles, it's typical Apple doing an incremental bump to keep up with what others are doing. Sad really.
Which 'new FCS' are you speaking about? Are you referring to the version that will allegedly be released at NAB? If so, how did you see it? You must be important!
jkane08
Apr 5, 05:40 PM
Would be grand if all this hype was for iMovie. :)
iMovie just had a refresh... and that's consumer level.. this is a pro-market meetup..
extremely excited for new FCP though! it's well overdue
iMovie just had a refresh... and that's consumer level.. this is a pro-market meetup..
extremely excited for new FCP though! it's well overdue
Nuck81
Dec 9, 10:02 AM
Anyone else have trouble leveling up your B-Spec driver? Mine really sucks and can't even finish the FF race in whatever car he drives.
Mine is a level 21.
It's worth doing as it gives you some amazing cars, like a Pagani Zonda R, and a Toyota 7 race car.
You have to keep your guy level headed, especially at the beginning. After he levels up a bit, you can generally let him be and he'll pull out the victory...
Mine is a level 21.
It's worth doing as it gives you some amazing cars, like a Pagani Zonda R, and a Toyota 7 race car.
You have to keep your guy level headed, especially at the beginning. After he levels up a bit, you can generally let him be and he'll pull out the victory...
Moyank24
Mar 1, 02:16 PM
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
If this link wasn't so offensive it might actually be funny. So, just because a medical doctor has archaic beliefs, everything he writes is true?
Josef Mengele was a medical doctor as well, you know.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
If you aren't supportive of my rights as a human being, than you are actually telling me what I can and can't do.
And as far as negative consequences, I really would love to know what you think negative consequences would be. And Hell, doesn't count...because I don't believe in your hell.
I'm a healthy, happy, educated, and employed woman. I've got 2 children, who are also healthy and happy. No negative consequences here.
If this link wasn't so offensive it might actually be funny. So, just because a medical doctor has archaic beliefs, everything he writes is true?
Josef Mengele was a medical doctor as well, you know.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
If you aren't supportive of my rights as a human being, than you are actually telling me what I can and can't do.
And as far as negative consequences, I really would love to know what you think negative consequences would be. And Hell, doesn't count...because I don't believe in your hell.
I'm a healthy, happy, educated, and employed woman. I've got 2 children, who are also healthy and happy. No negative consequences here.
blakbyrd
Aug 5, 04:07 PM
Reposting my prediction from another thread:
Brown Recluse Spider Bite
rown recluse spider bite,
rown recluse spider bite.
TAGS: spider bite spider bite
rown recluse spider2 Georgia
Brown Recluse Spider Bite
Share Your Spider Bite
BROWN RECLUSE SPIDER BITE,
black widow spider bites
Brown Recluse Spider Bite
Brown Recluse Spider Bite
rown recluse spider bite.
Related Images
Brown Recluse Brown Recluse
GLS
Mar 22, 01:42 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
It's the killer, alright...except this "killer" cannot do email or calendering on its own.
Link (http://macdailynews.com/2011/01/17/rim_playbook_will_ship_without_email_calendar_not_a_fully_standalone_device/)
How killer is a product that requires you to use another of the manufacturer's product in order to use two fundamental things such as email and a calendar?
Say all you want about an iPad, but it never needs to be tied to another device to access email....
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
It's the killer, alright...except this "killer" cannot do email or calendering on its own.
Link (http://macdailynews.com/2011/01/17/rim_playbook_will_ship_without_email_calendar_not_a_fully_standalone_device/)
How killer is a product that requires you to use another of the manufacturer's product in order to use two fundamental things such as email and a calendar?
Say all you want about an iPad, but it never needs to be tied to another device to access email....
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 10:41 AM
Well let's just check we are 'on the same page then'..
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
opinioncircle
Mar 19, 03:38 PM
When will you people realize that Obama is not in charge? You're not in charge either. Corporate interest rules the USA, Libya has 2% of the world's oil supply and a lot of companies have interests there. No one intervened militarily in Rwanda or East Timor. You guys can continue to have your little left vs right, conservative vs. liberal distraction of a debate, meanwhile the real people running the show don't give a rat's ass about any of it.
I do agree with you to a certain extent. I still feel there is room to make things happen, but the trio money/power/interests is the big factor in decisions made.
I am openly disappointed with President Obama. It seems he's chasing something that he can't have, i.e. appreciation from each and every American (left and right included).
He's gone soft on several issues, and instead of taking advantage of the position the Dems were in DC, they tried to find a false consensus. Sad is the only word coming to my mind when talking about President Obama 1st term.
I do agree with you to a certain extent. I still feel there is room to make things happen, but the trio money/power/interests is the big factor in decisions made.
I am openly disappointed with President Obama. It seems he's chasing something that he can't have, i.e. appreciation from each and every American (left and right included).
He's gone soft on several issues, and instead of taking advantage of the position the Dems were in DC, they tried to find a false consensus. Sad is the only word coming to my mind when talking about President Obama 1st term.
sunfast
Aug 17, 09:07 AM
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are �570. Apple are charging �530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around �300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
mcrain
Apr 27, 02:55 PM
Oh- and you're always objective. You are arguably one of the most abrasive and biased people here, and proud of it.
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Wait until he tells us which right-wing fringe website he was on so you can go read the instructions and try to recreate this silly pointless endeavor.
(edit) Whack-a-doodle website with Illustrator instructions (http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/04/long-form-birth-certificate.html). Is this it Fivepoint?
Or is it this other nutty site (http://www.patrioticdissent.net/2011/04/obama-long-form-birth-certificate-fake.html)?
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Wait until he tells us which right-wing fringe website he was on so you can go read the instructions and try to recreate this silly pointless endeavor.
(edit) Whack-a-doodle website with Illustrator instructions (http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/04/long-form-birth-certificate.html). Is this it Fivepoint?
Or is it this other nutty site (http://www.patrioticdissent.net/2011/04/obama-long-form-birth-certificate-fake.html)?
wolfshades
Mar 22, 12:48 PM
I wish RIM all the success in the world, even as I say that coming out with a WiFi-only version of the Playbook is a little short-sighted. Add to that so many executives want to have just one device, not two, in order to talk to their BES servers. (You need to pair the Playbook with a Blackberry)
I know that for RIM is a catch-22. They want desperately to compete with Apple before the iPad corners the market on tablets, and they didn't feel they could wait until their 3G product arrives at the end of this year.
I know that for RIM is a catch-22. They want desperately to compete with Apple before the iPad corners the market on tablets, and they didn't feel they could wait until their 3G product arrives at the end of this year.
teme
Sep 19, 03:45 AM
PowerBook G5 by the holidays.
I wish this board would block automatically "PowerBook G5" and replace it with "************" so this tired so-called-joke would end someday.
I wish this board would block automatically "PowerBook G5" and replace it with "************" so this tired so-called-joke would end someday.
inhrntlyunstabl
Apr 25, 03:58 PM
I always wonder what people are thinking...
"Apple <or insert any evil corporation or government entity> has 100s millions of customers, but I bet they've singled me out for tracking with the black helicopters and vans because I make $25,000 a year and have access to the a state of the art Camry and have 2.5 kids."
or
"Those bastards at Apple <or insert again> are trying to figure out what I like to buy with their Genius tracking the songs I download, ads I click on, etc. to try to target ads and future products at me! Those sons of bitches!"
People, 1984 was long ago. You have no privacy unless you don't live in society, e.g unabomber. Get over yourself, you are not so special Apple is paying any specific attention to you. They want to know how many 1000s of people are at your Starbucks, but not you. Otherwise, encrypt your backups, chain your iPhone, iPad, Macs and PCs to your wrist, and shoot at anyone that looks over your shoulder.
Besides, the iPhone Software License Agreement is pretty solid on this front. The only hole to fill is why it might still be logging when Location Services is disabled. But at end of the day, this is a tiny tiny aspect of a much much larger issue - we use technology that will track what we do, influence us, etc. We have to learn to accept this. It's going to be impossible to stop this. Get over it.
"Apple <or insert any evil corporation or government entity> has 100s millions of customers, but I bet they've singled me out for tracking with the black helicopters and vans because I make $25,000 a year and have access to the a state of the art Camry and have 2.5 kids."
or
"Those bastards at Apple <or insert again> are trying to figure out what I like to buy with their Genius tracking the songs I download, ads I click on, etc. to try to target ads and future products at me! Those sons of bitches!"
People, 1984 was long ago. You have no privacy unless you don't live in society, e.g unabomber. Get over yourself, you are not so special Apple is paying any specific attention to you. They want to know how many 1000s of people are at your Starbucks, but not you. Otherwise, encrypt your backups, chain your iPhone, iPad, Macs and PCs to your wrist, and shoot at anyone that looks over your shoulder.
Besides, the iPhone Software License Agreement is pretty solid on this front. The only hole to fill is why it might still be logging when Location Services is disabled. But at end of the day, this is a tiny tiny aspect of a much much larger issue - we use technology that will track what we do, influence us, etc. We have to learn to accept this. It's going to be impossible to stop this. Get over it.
GQB
Mar 31, 05:10 PM
Good. I hope they take one of the last strengths of the iPad ecosystem away from it.
If you're going to spew nonsense, at least make it relevant to the thread.
If you're going to spew nonsense, at least make it relevant to the thread.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
kdarling
Apr 20, 03:35 PM
I noticed that the HTC and Samsung cases only share just one patent: the bounce-back one.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 03:21 AM
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
My handicap puts me in a minority full of people who think like Marxists. They'll tell you that they're the innocent, persecuted ones and that everyone else is the evil oppressor. Newsflash: Good and evil are on both sides. The "victims" aren't all good and the "persecutors" aren't all bad.
As I told you guys, I think that moral liberty consists of the ability to adopt the means to do the good. Moral liberty is not license. License causes chaos.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
My handicap puts me in a minority full of people who think like Marxists. They'll tell you that they're the innocent, persecuted ones and that everyone else is the evil oppressor. Newsflash: Good and evil are on both sides. The "victims" aren't all good and the "persecutors" aren't all bad.
As I told you guys, I think that moral liberty consists of the ability to adopt the means to do the good. Moral liberty is not license. License causes chaos.
Northgrove
Mar 26, 11:21 AM
Damn, this was confusing. I can barely decide between the 24 versions you mentioned. Add Windows 7 Starter, a version meant only for Notebooks. Still only 4 versions.
Windows 7 is available in six editions, and three of those (bolded) are available through normal retail channels.
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
Windows 7 is available in six editions, and three of those (bolded) are available through normal retail channels.
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
fivepoint
Apr 27, 02:27 PM
I am fairly confident that rather than pointing to a conspiracy, this simply shows that when scanned, the operator had enabled some sort of "auto-text" option that attempted to read and convert then embed the raw text info in the PDF, as to make the text "selectable" in preview programs.
It only worked on certain text, as is par for the course.
Hopefully you're not insinuating that I am pointing to a conspiracy, I'm pretty sure I was quite clear on that account.
As for the 'auto-text' thing... interesting, why though would the several dates, etc. be on separate layers? And why would the signatures be separate from the typed text? Just slightly different colorations? My only thought was that the thing was retouched in order to improve the appearance of a poor quality scan... but why would they be so sloppy in reassembling? Why not make it a single layer image before releasing? I don't buy that it was simply overlooked... It's the White House for crying out loud. It's as if they WANT they want the controversy to continue???
It only worked on certain text, as is par for the course.
Hopefully you're not insinuating that I am pointing to a conspiracy, I'm pretty sure I was quite clear on that account.
As for the 'auto-text' thing... interesting, why though would the several dates, etc. be on separate layers? And why would the signatures be separate from the typed text? Just slightly different colorations? My only thought was that the thing was retouched in order to improve the appearance of a poor quality scan... but why would they be so sloppy in reassembling? Why not make it a single layer image before releasing? I don't buy that it was simply overlooked... It's the White House for crying out loud. It's as if they WANT they want the controversy to continue???
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 26, 05:57 AM
in my experience, their support has always sucked..even from day 1 with my first PowerMac G5 back in 2004.
Let's see...
PowerMac G5 arrived with a defective superdrive, miscalibrated fans. The genius 'couldn't hear the fans', and accidentally put the repair in someone else's name, so when I tried to pick it up, I had to haggle to get it. Oh, and when I did finally get it, the superdrive was still broken. Super...
Cinema Display arrived with 7 dead pixels...I know this is a touchy issue, but the problem with their support regarding it was that none of them knew the actual number to replace it at. The phone people told me 5, the store (after the 45 minute drive there) told me 15, and another rep (who finally replaced it) told me 3.
iMac G5 had a defective power supply on arrival--would shut off randomly, some times not turning on. They refused to acknowledge this the first time we were there...the second time we were there...third time...fourth time they gave in--by saying "we'll keep it overnight." They still.."couldn't find a problem." When they gave it back, it worked for..two weeks, then the fans started being wonky. They couldn't hear that the first or second visit, on the third visit they took it overnight, "couldn't hear any audible issue", but it shutdown on them. I guess taking our word for it, they replaced the fan assembly, logic board, and power supply. Worked for a month, now it still shuts down.
MacBook Pro had the defective battery (random shutdowns), now fixed. Also, I had the screen buzz (now fixed), CPU A Whine (now fixed). They basically fixed all the issues in this machine, but were four days over their expected return time.
I'm not saying their support is totally crap, but they're certainly not consistent in performance, technical knowledge, friendliness, or even coverage. I was talking to a friend about "what I'd do if I were Steve Jobs," and the first thing we agreed on was to fire the entire AppleCare department, and all the genius', because they all seem to suck.
But hey, my iBook G4 and MacBook are fine...
There shouldn't be LUCK involved when buying ANYTHING, including an APPLE:p
Let's see...
PowerMac G5 arrived with a defective superdrive, miscalibrated fans. The genius 'couldn't hear the fans', and accidentally put the repair in someone else's name, so when I tried to pick it up, I had to haggle to get it. Oh, and when I did finally get it, the superdrive was still broken. Super...
Cinema Display arrived with 7 dead pixels...I know this is a touchy issue, but the problem with their support regarding it was that none of them knew the actual number to replace it at. The phone people told me 5, the store (after the 45 minute drive there) told me 15, and another rep (who finally replaced it) told me 3.
iMac G5 had a defective power supply on arrival--would shut off randomly, some times not turning on. They refused to acknowledge this the first time we were there...the second time we were there...third time...fourth time they gave in--by saying "we'll keep it overnight." They still.."couldn't find a problem." When they gave it back, it worked for..two weeks, then the fans started being wonky. They couldn't hear that the first or second visit, on the third visit they took it overnight, "couldn't hear any audible issue", but it shutdown on them. I guess taking our word for it, they replaced the fan assembly, logic board, and power supply. Worked for a month, now it still shuts down.
MacBook Pro had the defective battery (random shutdowns), now fixed. Also, I had the screen buzz (now fixed), CPU A Whine (now fixed). They basically fixed all the issues in this machine, but were four days over their expected return time.
I'm not saying their support is totally crap, but they're certainly not consistent in performance, technical knowledge, friendliness, or even coverage. I was talking to a friend about "what I'd do if I were Steve Jobs," and the first thing we agreed on was to fire the entire AppleCare department, and all the genius', because they all seem to suck.
But hey, my iBook G4 and MacBook are fine...
There shouldn't be LUCK involved when buying ANYTHING, including an APPLE:p
dante@sisna.com
Aug 18, 04:40 AM
My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.
And my MAC PRO 3.0 is on the way. But this Quad G5, still a great box -- highly recommend.
DJO
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.
And my MAC PRO 3.0 is on the way. But this Quad G5, still a great box -- highly recommend.
DJO
pmz
Apr 6, 10:30 AM
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)
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
DrRadon
Mar 22, 01:11 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Looking at these specs will be awsome while iPad users actualy have a ******** of Apps to actualy use their specs on. :rolleyes:
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Looking at these specs will be awsome while iPad users actualy have a ******** of Apps to actualy use their specs on. :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment