skunk
Mar 26, 01:31 PM
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.Do you have a source for this extraordinary claim?
more...
shamino
Mar 18, 03:50 PM
The interesting thing here is that this hack doesn't violate the DMCA. It violates the iTunes shrink-wrap license, but that's only enforceable in VA and MD.
The DMCA doesn't allow breaking encryption. So saving a data stream that is sent unencrypted from a legal distributor doesn't violate this law.
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.
This doesn't make it any more difficult for a creating programmer to capture the stream and remove the common encryption without applying DRM, but it does mean that he has to decrypt something in the process. Which makes it into a DMCA violation.
Of course, a new iTunes update will be required to make this happen, but this wouldn't be the first time Apple made a change to ITMS requiring an iTunes upgrade.
The DMCA doesn't allow breaking encryption. So saving a data stream that is sent unencrypted from a legal distributor doesn't violate this law.
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.
This doesn't make it any more difficult for a creating programmer to capture the stream and remove the common encryption without applying DRM, but it does mean that he has to decrypt something in the process. Which makes it into a DMCA violation.
Of course, a new iTunes update will be required to make this happen, but this wouldn't be the first time Apple made a change to ITMS requiring an iTunes upgrade.
more...
generik
Jul 12, 12:02 AM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I doubt it will be like this. While this was the trend back in the PPC days when consumers have no alternatives to make comparisons with, people can make direct comparisons now, and no way will your Macbook look remotely attractive when a PC at 70% of the price has better specs.
"It runs MacOS" just doesn't cut it to switchers, sad to say. The corollary to that is "PCs come with Windows Vista".
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I doubt it will be like this. While this was the trend back in the PPC days when consumers have no alternatives to make comparisons with, people can make direct comparisons now, and no way will your Macbook look remotely attractive when a PC at 70% of the price has better specs.
"It runs MacOS" just doesn't cut it to switchers, sad to say. The corollary to that is "PCs come with Windows Vista".
more...
iJohnHenry
Mar 11, 07:20 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
more...
PCUser
Oct 8, 09:54 AM
What? No Dynamic Link Libraries in the MacOS X? You've got to be kidding me. That's a very bad choice on Apple's part. Especially since UNIX has their own type of DLL's. The whole point of a DLL is to make it so that programs don't need to load the same exact libraries into memory and waste space... the standard C library alone is about 2 megs. And the speed benefit from static libraries versus dynamic in *nix is nill. I know, I've compiled the same library both ways just to test that fact. (For those that don't know, static libraries are compiled into an app, and dynamic libraries are stored only once in memory.)
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
thejoshu
Mar 21, 01:32 AM
They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.
more...
hvfsl
Oct 8, 05:34 PM
Linux runs programs faster than windows on intel hardware so Apple has a fast OS, just not fast hardware. Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding and photoshop. But PCs are faster in games and 3D graphics. I have top of the range Macs and PCs at home and have done the tests. But the Macs speed is all thanks to AltiVec, if not a $1000 PC would be faster in PhotoShop than a top of the range Mac.
joeboy_45101
Mar 19, 01:27 AM
It's this kind of crap that's going to scare the record companies into demanding a higher price for songs sold online. They are at this time still sceptical about the whole online business as is. DVD Jon has proved his points, yes he is a good hacker and DRM is not bulletproof. But, I wish he would get it into his head that MOST people don't mind DRM on digital music if it is designed to be flexible enough so that it doesn't stand in the way of enjoyment.
If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.
If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.
more...
milo
Sep 20, 05:58 PM
In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini!
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
linknprk
Mar 18, 02:52 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
more...
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :)
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
digitalbiker
Mar 18, 09:08 PM
I think this whole issue with Apple, DRM, & the music industry once again makes it perfectly clear that this distribution model is flawed. I have never used the Apple Store because I won't support digital encryption methods that restrict rights for the sole purpose of profit. I buy cd's and rip my music.
The recording industry needs to change or die. We are no longer living in the 1950's. Making perfect copies of recordings and distributing multiple copies of the recording is no longer the significant monetary burden it once was.
The recording industry needs to shift to a new business paradigm. If downloading music is to be the standard for distibution then profit-margins should be reduced to pennies per song. Artists should try to generate income through live-performances, or through managing their own web distribution system, charging a few cents a song.
The recording industry wants to be compensated at ever increasing rates even though technology has significantly reduced the cost of doing business. They can't have their cake, eat-it too, and lose weight.
The recording industry needs to change or die. We are no longer living in the 1950's. Making perfect copies of recordings and distributing multiple copies of the recording is no longer the significant monetary burden it once was.
The recording industry needs to shift to a new business paradigm. If downloading music is to be the standard for distibution then profit-margins should be reduced to pennies per song. Artists should try to generate income through live-performances, or through managing their own web distribution system, charging a few cents a song.
The recording industry wants to be compensated at ever increasing rates even though technology has significantly reduced the cost of doing business. They can't have their cake, eat-it too, and lose weight.
more...
babyj
Sep 21, 03:17 AM
There is going to be a lot of changes to how we watch and pay for tv shows over the next few years, its still early days at the moment. The main change will be watching everything on demand rather than at the time it is broadcast.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
skunk
Apr 27, 03:18 PM
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 10:41 AM
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom.
not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.
I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah
really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.
But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.
Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.
So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.
I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah
really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.
But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.
Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.
So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
more...
Gelfin
Mar 26, 01:50 AM
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
more...
mrsir2009
Apr 9, 03:03 AM
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
Pokemon belongs on GameBoys, Gameboy colours and Gameboy advanceds.
Pokemon belongs on GameBoys, Gameboy colours and Gameboy advanceds.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:18 PM
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
you say it only applies to muslims yet the victims in blasphemy cases in pakistan, for example, are mostly christians.
I do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
you say it only applies to muslims yet the victims in blasphemy cases in pakistan, for example, are mostly christians.
I do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:35 PM
Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.
I might like to point out that CFL have other problems like mercury that is in them and dealing with the desposal. On top of that some people are really badly effect by the flickering of the lights because yes they do flicker at I believe 120hz. Most people not an issue but to some it causes some major head aches. Lovely flaw of AC power to those things.
Now if we can get LED down in cost and get be able to get them to work at that warm color that most of us use in our CFL and incondences we would be great but those are a long way off at being cheap and bright enough.
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
I think we need to pull from a lot of different sources like put solar arrays on the roofs of houses, wind farms if possible but those have limitations.
Right now Wind is about break even in terms of cost for most of the US. (not in Texas it is a money loser here) Solar is production is about 3 times what they can make selling it per MW. (information from someone I personally know in the industry and he is in those spots and is finding and building it. High enough to see all sides of it and has been in the power industry over 30 years and alternative for a very long time as well.)
I might like to point out that CFL have other problems like mercury that is in them and dealing with the desposal. On top of that some people are really badly effect by the flickering of the lights because yes they do flicker at I believe 120hz. Most people not an issue but to some it causes some major head aches. Lovely flaw of AC power to those things.
Now if we can get LED down in cost and get be able to get them to work at that warm color that most of us use in our CFL and incondences we would be great but those are a long way off at being cheap and bright enough.
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
I think we need to pull from a lot of different sources like put solar arrays on the roofs of houses, wind farms if possible but those have limitations.
Right now Wind is about break even in terms of cost for most of the US. (not in Texas it is a money loser here) Solar is production is about 3 times what they can make selling it per MW. (information from someone I personally know in the industry and he is in those spots and is finding and building it. High enough to see all sides of it and has been in the power industry over 30 years and alternative for a very long time as well.)
more...
awmazz
Mar 15, 10:59 AM
I don't think you understand
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
Do you have the slightest inkling..? Do you have an inkling ..?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies?
Any idea?
you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that?
Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
You're really being out of line.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I think you're a very paranoid individual
I'm guessing you also don't understand
I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science
I don't even know why I waste my time.
I know exactly why you waste your time. Because it makes you feel intellectually superior.
Like I said. You may know atomics. I know people. :cool:
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
Do you have the slightest inkling..? Do you have an inkling ..?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies?
Any idea?
you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that?
Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
You're really being out of line.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I think you're a very paranoid individual
I'm guessing you also don't understand
I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science
I don't even know why I waste my time.
I know exactly why you waste your time. Because it makes you feel intellectually superior.
Like I said. You may know atomics. I know people. :cool:
more...
leekohler
Mar 27, 11:12 AM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
more...
leekohler
Mar 26, 02:41 AM
I just love the :cool: expression on this :rolleyes: guy's sarcastic face. Thanks. :D
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
more...
Rt&Dzine;
Apr 27, 07:48 PM
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
My comment was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
My comment was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Cromulent
Apr 24, 10:13 AM
No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
