twoodcc
Dec 3, 12:40 PM
i'm still enjoying the game. it seems some on here have gotten pretty far in the game. i'm Aspec level 9 and Bspec level 12 (i let it race for me when i'm away sometimes). i would play Aspec more, but i gotta save up some money to get the cars for the other races.
oh and i only have the b license so far.
oh and i only have the b license so far.
ciTiger
Apr 27, 08:58 AM
It seems a good argument to me.
But saying they are going to "issue" an update specifically for fixing related things seems fishy....
But saying they are going to "issue" an update specifically for fixing related things seems fishy....
Eidorian
Jul 14, 09:47 PM
How would you burn two DVDs at once Eldorian? I don't know of any software that lets you do this do you? :confused:
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.Uh, you can use Finder if you wanted to. Just put in two discs, drag the files on, and hit burn. I'm talking data. I should have tried burning to images last night using Disk Utility. Well, I could have but one at x2 and the other at x16. :D
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.Uh, you can use Finder if you wanted to. Just put in two discs, drag the files on, and hit burn. I'm talking data. I should have tried burning to images last night using Disk Utility. Well, I could have but one at x2 and the other at x16. :D
inhrntlyunstabl
Apr 27, 09:54 AM
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
Hey Birther, guess what else happened today?! :eek:
Too many conspiracy addicts out there. Let it go and live your life.
Hey Birther, guess what else happened today?! :eek:
Too many conspiracy addicts out there. Let it go and live your life.
dernhelm
Aug 5, 07:43 PM
To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Don't like it. I don't want a new keyboard - I just want FR. Besides, anyone with an older laptop would not be served by that. Just put a USB dongle in the case and sell it with the software!
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Don't like it. I don't want a new keyboard - I just want FR. Besides, anyone with an older laptop would not be served by that. Just put a USB dongle in the case and sell it with the software!
Multimedia
Aug 19, 08:51 PM
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.While it is true I have no life, it is not true I have fully decided to skip buying a Mac Pro. These discussions have lead me to a place of indecision about it rather than what I previously thought, which was to skip it. I never intended to talk anyone out of buying one if they want one. And I never intended to talk bad dirt against it. My apologies to anyone who thought I did. :(
My hearty congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
My hearty congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
macpross
Aug 6, 11:28 PM
Great joke, thanks very much...in the same line as Tiger Computer Dealers, right?
We already have a Mac Pro line of products, we are also the owners of AppleLocks, and MacMice. The Tiger thing was silly.
We already have a Mac Pro line of products, we are also the owners of AppleLocks, and MacMice. The Tiger thing was silly.
asiayeah
Aug 25, 06:14 PM
In US, people get free shipping for their new batteries.
In Hong Kong, we have to visit the service providers in person TWICE! First we have to go there and give up our old battery for registration. Then we have to wait for at least 10 days and visit the service providers AGAIN to get the new battery.
It's simply poor service from Apple!
P.S. The Apple HK support staff actually told me they just know about the news on the same day as me. They also incorrectly told me that only MacBook's batteries replacements have free shippings...
In Hong Kong, we have to visit the service providers in person TWICE! First we have to go there and give up our old battery for registration. Then we have to wait for at least 10 days and visit the service providers AGAIN to get the new battery.
It's simply poor service from Apple!
P.S. The Apple HK support staff actually told me they just know about the news on the same day as me. They also incorrectly told me that only MacBook's batteries replacements have free shippings...
DeeEss
Apr 27, 08:38 AM
NWO run for the hills!
Peace
Aug 5, 04:01 PM
I can't wait for Monday. I'll be working that day, so I am going to try to watch the keynote before reading any updates. I even have the Quicktime Events page bookmarked. :D I figured I would be more surprised by taking this route.
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
Just an opinion p0intblank.We all have em :)
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
Just an opinion p0intblank.We all have em :)
fithian
Apr 8, 07:55 AM
Just for entertainment, go to a Worst Buy and sidle up to a sales guy giving his pitch to an unsuspecting victim. I only ever go there to see a model in person before ordering online or elsewhere. I do purchase items at local stores who respect the customer and don't tell blatant lies about the products.
Al Coholic
Mar 26, 06:03 PM
Maybe not the worst, but definitely the most useless.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
kansast
Nov 28, 09:43 PM
yea no thanks. i pay for my music anyway. got to support the "band" you know :)
Who's to say that if I buy an iPod that I would ever want to put any of Universal's music on it //
Who's to say that if I buy an iPod that I would ever want to put any of Universal's music on it //
BGil
Aug 7, 04:42 PM
Which takes us back to the behavior that was the default on VAX systems running VMS 20 years ago... Microsoft is implementing something similar in Vista as well. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7383.html
B
Yeah, Apple is definitely copying Microsoft now... it's pretty undeniable. Time Machine is virtually identical to Microsoft's backup system for Vista.
"Previous Docs" from Wikipedia:
"Previous Versions", previously known as Volume Shadow Copy in Windows Server provides read-only snapshots of files on local or network volumes from an earlier point in time. A new tab in the Properties dialog for any file or folder provides users with straightforward access to these previous versions.
System Restore, Shadow Copy, and Backup in Vista now run on the same technology (so they are considerably different than the XP versions).
iChat basically got the remote screen sharing feature that Microsoft shipped with XP in 2001 (included in Windows Messenger) and the presentation/app sharing features from Windows collaboration in Vista.
Mail and iCal got a bunch of features from Outlook 2007 and Windows Live Calendar/Mail.
Dashboard's ability to clip web pages is straight out of Active Desktop.
the Spotlight improvements were things that Indexing Server in XP/2000/2003 already did. Even windows desktop search (enterprise) and Vista include that functionality as well.
Spaces is virtual desktops just like the powertoy MS released years ago
http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/Virtual_Desktop_Manager_Powertoy/msvdm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop
Core Animation looks like Apple's response to all the DX and WPF (Avalon) animation tools in Vista.
B
Yeah, Apple is definitely copying Microsoft now... it's pretty undeniable. Time Machine is virtually identical to Microsoft's backup system for Vista.
"Previous Docs" from Wikipedia:
"Previous Versions", previously known as Volume Shadow Copy in Windows Server provides read-only snapshots of files on local or network volumes from an earlier point in time. A new tab in the Properties dialog for any file or folder provides users with straightforward access to these previous versions.
System Restore, Shadow Copy, and Backup in Vista now run on the same technology (so they are considerably different than the XP versions).
iChat basically got the remote screen sharing feature that Microsoft shipped with XP in 2001 (included in Windows Messenger) and the presentation/app sharing features from Windows collaboration in Vista.
Mail and iCal got a bunch of features from Outlook 2007 and Windows Live Calendar/Mail.
Dashboard's ability to clip web pages is straight out of Active Desktop.
the Spotlight improvements were things that Indexing Server in XP/2000/2003 already did. Even windows desktop search (enterprise) and Vista include that functionality as well.
Spaces is virtual desktops just like the powertoy MS released years ago
http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/Virtual_Desktop_Manager_Powertoy/msvdm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop
Core Animation looks like Apple's response to all the DX and WPF (Avalon) animation tools in Vista.
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 11:10 AM
You posted a list of artist people will start to illegally copy if Universal starts to tax iPods....
Hey, what they do with the list is their business...
All I was doing was letting the thread know the breadth of Universal's stable!
;)
Hey, what they do with the list is their business...
All I was doing was letting the thread know the breadth of Universal's stable!
;)
AmbitiousLemon
Nov 28, 07:43 PM
This reminds me of this article from BBspot: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html
MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations
By Scott Small
Los Angeles , CA - The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.
MPAA head Dan Glickman says this needs to be regulated before things start getting too far out of control, "We didn't act early enough with the online sharing of our copyrighted content. This time we're not making the same mistake. We have a right to know what's showing in a theater."
The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.
The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.
Related News
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.
The bill also stipulates that any existing home theaters be retrofitted with the technology or else the owner is responsible for directly informing the MPAA and receiving approval before each viewing.
Unfortunately the BBspot article is a joke, and Reuters story isn't.
MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations
By Scott Small
Los Angeles , CA - The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.
MPAA head Dan Glickman says this needs to be regulated before things start getting too far out of control, "We didn't act early enough with the online sharing of our copyrighted content. This time we're not making the same mistake. We have a right to know what's showing in a theater."
The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.
The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.
Related News
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.
The bill also stipulates that any existing home theaters be retrofitted with the technology or else the owner is responsible for directly informing the MPAA and receiving approval before each viewing.
Unfortunately the BBspot article is a joke, and Reuters story isn't.
macse30
Apr 27, 07:59 AM
I wish they would leave it on and let me use it. I consider it a feature. It would help me track hours at job sites automatically for billing. I thought of writing an app just for that.
11thIndian
Apr 6, 07:25 AM
.. I never use it, but I use Motion and Soundtrack a lot and I need true 3D in Motion, even simply 3D. I need no crashing Motion. I need optimised and 64-bit Motion. I want it now, please!
What do you mean true 3D? Motion 3 integrated 3D reflection, shadows, depth of field, etc.. It was around that time I stopped using After Effects. There are still things that AE can do that Motion can't, but that's mostly due to 3rd party plugins.
What do you mean true 3D? Motion 3 integrated 3D reflection, shadows, depth of field, etc.. It was around that time I stopped using After Effects. There are still things that AE can do that Motion can't, but that's mostly due to 3rd party plugins.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:55 AM
Couldn't God just forgive everyone and make heaven bigger?
However many people go to heaven, it'll have plenty of room them. For God to forgive sinners, they need to repent first.
However many people go to heaven, it'll have plenty of room them. For God to forgive sinners, they need to repent first.
swingerofbirch
Aug 7, 06:28 PM
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/accessibility.html
From this site:
Closed captioning
QuickTime currently supports closed captioning by including a text track alongside audio and video content. But improved QuickTime support will automatically display the CEA-608 closed captioning text standard in analog broadcasts in the U.S.
-----
Anyone think this means support for Closed Captioning in iTunes video downloads? As a hearing-impaired Mac-User, the lack of subtitles/captions in the TV shows is the one thing keeping me from buying a bunch of them. I hope they address this issue soon...
I am not hearing impaired, but I often watch TV and movies with the closed captioning on. I cannot really say what about it makes it more enjoyable to me--no one has ever understood why I do it, maybe it has to do with how I process information (I do have trouble listening in lecture classes, maybe a learning disability etc.), but my point is to say that I am also interested in getting closed captioning on iTunes shows.
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
From this site:
Closed captioning
QuickTime currently supports closed captioning by including a text track alongside audio and video content. But improved QuickTime support will automatically display the CEA-608 closed captioning text standard in analog broadcasts in the U.S.
-----
Anyone think this means support for Closed Captioning in iTunes video downloads? As a hearing-impaired Mac-User, the lack of subtitles/captions in the TV shows is the one thing keeping me from buying a bunch of them. I hope they address this issue soon...
I am not hearing impaired, but I often watch TV and movies with the closed captioning on. I cannot really say what about it makes it more enjoyable to me--no one has ever understood why I do it, maybe it has to do with how I process information (I do have trouble listening in lecture classes, maybe a learning disability etc.), but my point is to say that I am also interested in getting closed captioning on iTunes shows.
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
Great Dave
Apr 5, 11:04 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray...
Seriously?!?! Have you been Zombitizied by Steve?
I have been highly critical of Apple of late - their "Pro?" stuff - harware and software - gets further and further behind the competition all the time.
And I always wait for them, because of these stupid rumors. Will this one finally be accurate?
Seriously?!?! Have you been Zombitizied by Steve?
I have been highly critical of Apple of late - their "Pro?" stuff - harware and software - gets further and further behind the competition all the time.
And I always wait for them, because of these stupid rumors. Will this one finally be accurate?
dongmin
Sep 19, 10:02 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
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
mkruck
Apr 6, 03:06 PM
Yeesh dude, at least your wife cares enough to do nice things for you. :(
Yes, and my response that you quoted was said tongue in cheek. People really need to lighten up and stop taking themselves so seriously.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
Yes, and my response that you quoted was said tongue in cheek. People really need to lighten up and stop taking themselves so seriously.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
