fastlane1588
Jul 27, 12:19 PM
thats a pretty cool concept i must say
Luph67
Mar 31, 11:02 PM
I'd take an iPhone over an android any day, but let's get real--the apple community is having a field day with this because of how much the competition has stressed "open" over "closed" in the past. Really the whole argument is so bogged down in brand loyalty that it's not even worth having anymore.
TripHop
Jun 14, 06:52 PM
I understand your frustration, but apple kept us all in the dark until the very last minute. Before 3:30 no body knew anything. It will take it a little while to roll down hill.
I think we all know how secretive apple is don't we?
I just manage a store in the best region in the company. We have a very effective chain of command here in E. Texas.I called all 3 corporate stores in my county and none of the managers knew about the conference call and none of them know how they're going to handle pre-orders tomorrow morning. They ASSUME it will be the way they pre-sold Evo phones which was with a $50 deposit. But they don't know anything about PIN numbers or anything else the East Texas administration or national is telling you. One manager reported there's a pre-opening conference call scheduled for California stores tomorrow morning. The other 2 didn't even report that to me. But just called my closest store and the manager says the 8:30 conference call tomorrow morning is a weekly event and nothing special for the pre-order instructions. :confused:
I think we all know how secretive apple is don't we?
I just manage a store in the best region in the company. We have a very effective chain of command here in E. Texas.I called all 3 corporate stores in my county and none of the managers knew about the conference call and none of them know how they're going to handle pre-orders tomorrow morning. They ASSUME it will be the way they pre-sold Evo phones which was with a $50 deposit. But they don't know anything about PIN numbers or anything else the East Texas administration or national is telling you. One manager reported there's a pre-opening conference call scheduled for California stores tomorrow morning. The other 2 didn't even report that to me. But just called my closest store and the manager says the 8:30 conference call tomorrow morning is a weekly event and nothing special for the pre-order instructions. :confused:
tk421
Nov 29, 10:44 AM
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
I guess I understand this. We all pay a little more on purchases to make up for shoplifting. But all of my music is legal, and I think this is a very bad move.
As others have pointed out, I doubt any of this money will actually end up in the hands of artists. And who decides which artists? And what about smaller labels? Nobody will be compensating them. My brother is unsigned. Who will pay him for the illegal copies of his music that I know exist? It seems to me, the artists getting the money (if any do) will be the ones that already sell the most and therefore are struggling the least.
To be clear, I strongly oppose stealing music. I also strongly oppose calling all music listeners thieves and charging us all for it. And I'm all for the blacklist, and I'll gladly tell Universal I'm through with their music!
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
I guess I understand this. We all pay a little more on purchases to make up for shoplifting. But all of my music is legal, and I think this is a very bad move.
As others have pointed out, I doubt any of this money will actually end up in the hands of artists. And who decides which artists? And what about smaller labels? Nobody will be compensating them. My brother is unsigned. Who will pay him for the illegal copies of his music that I know exist? It seems to me, the artists getting the money (if any do) will be the ones that already sell the most and therefore are struggling the least.
To be clear, I strongly oppose stealing music. I also strongly oppose calling all music listeners thieves and charging us all for it. And I'm all for the blacklist, and I'll gladly tell Universal I'm through with their music!
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:31 PM
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
Right, just love those gadgets and ignore that the manufacturer that's making your favorite ones...and changing the entire direciton of multiple industries...happens to be Apple. Honestly, you're doing the flipside of the coin here - you're purposefully fooling yourself into being a "fan" of everything. Which is actually, a lot worse.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
Right, just love those gadgets and ignore that the manufacturer that's making your favorite ones...and changing the entire direciton of multiple industries...happens to be Apple. Honestly, you're doing the flipside of the coin here - you're purposefully fooling yourself into being a "fan" of everything. Which is actually, a lot worse.
janstett
Sep 15, 08:26 AM
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 05:07 PM
It never ceases to amaze me at how many Android users have to flock to a site called "MacRumors" because they feel then need to lead us poor blinded Apple "fanboys" to the bright shining city on a hill that is Android paradise.
Android has taken fanboyism to epic new proportions. You can't go anywhere on the Web these days without the Android Brigade screaming at you about how awesome, "free" and "open" it is and how you should get on board. Just post the comment "ANDROID FTW!!!" on Engadget and watch the upvotes ensue. And while they're celebrating their epic market share gains, they are referring to iOS users as "sheep." Riiiight.
I thought the Apple vs Microsoft holy war was bad (and we have at least one pro MS astroturfer on this Apple-oriented site), but Google seriously has a mindlock on some of these people. (I'm not referring to all Android users, mind you, only the ranting/raving types (which seem to be the majority these days).
Android has taken fanboyism to epic new proportions. You can't go anywhere on the Web these days without the Android Brigade screaming at you about how awesome, "free" and "open" it is and how you should get on board. Just post the comment "ANDROID FTW!!!" on Engadget and watch the upvotes ensue. And while they're celebrating their epic market share gains, they are referring to iOS users as "sheep." Riiiight.
I thought the Apple vs Microsoft holy war was bad (and we have at least one pro MS astroturfer on this Apple-oriented site), but Google seriously has a mindlock on some of these people. (I'm not referring to all Android users, mind you, only the ranting/raving types (which seem to be the majority these days).
Blue Velvet
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
Announcing their hand before negotiations even start indicate a degree of flexibility in their position... this is just posturing at this stage.
nilk
Apr 6, 03:41 PM
Once you have it, you don't want it without.
ps:I type fastttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
sent from swipe keyboard :D
I've never liked backlit keys and have it turned off on my MBPs. I find it annoying, personally, but I do touch type so I'm never looking at the keys. I totally understand those who do want that feature (and Apple should add it to the MBA because it appears to be important for a enough people), but personally I don't care for it and am glad I can turn it off.
ps:I type fastttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
sent from swipe keyboard :D
I've never liked backlit keys and have it turned off on my MBPs. I find it annoying, personally, but I do touch type so I'm never looking at the keys. I totally understand those who do want that feature (and Apple should add it to the MBA because it appears to be important for a enough people), but personally I don't care for it and am glad I can turn it off.
bibbz
Jun 14, 06:02 PM
@NJRonbo...
Reservations with a pin attached DO guarantee you a phone on launch day. This is how our DC knows how many to send. Otherwise there would be no point in doing a reservation. Basically if a store takes 20 reservations, they will get 20 phones plus a few extra based on how many reservations they took. If a store tells you the reservation will not guarantee you a phone, go to a diff RS bc that store doest know what theya re talking about.
:apple: says we cannot call it a "pre-order" and we cannot take money for the iPhone 4 before launch day!
Reservations with a pin attached DO guarantee you a phone on launch day. This is how our DC knows how many to send. Otherwise there would be no point in doing a reservation. Basically if a store takes 20 reservations, they will get 20 phones plus a few extra based on how many reservations they took. If a store tells you the reservation will not guarantee you a phone, go to a diff RS bc that store doest know what theya re talking about.
:apple: says we cannot call it a "pre-order" and we cannot take money for the iPhone 4 before launch day!
~Shard~
Aug 11, 10:25 AM
I really hope Apple comes out with a phone that's an awesome phone, music player, and smart phone... Is that asking too much?
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
k995
Mar 23, 04:07 AM
I am not sure you are using "UI" correctly.
I get the notification thing, but I keep seeing some people talking about the look of the interface of IOS being dated and I don't get it. It seems like a very young and inexperienced viewpoint. Wanting change solely for the sake of change. The UI for IOS works very well. I don't want it changed just because some people are bored of looking at it. This is something you realize as you get older and more experienced in life. Change just for the sake of change is not a great deal, most of the time.
Perhaps you just dont have any experience with other UI's? That people jailbreak to specificly change certain parts of it shows there is something lacking.
I upgraded my ipad to 4.3 and already am annoyed I lost a lot of ease in the UI because there isnt a unthered jailbreak avaible.
Change for the sake of improved usability and function? I am all for it. Change of the UI just because they have used the same basic look for the UI for 5 years? No not really.
Better notifications, different user profiles, better accesibility on settings, better multitasking, better start screen , more interactivity on the home screen,...
Here I don't think you understand how "multitasking" works on IOS devices.
It is not really possible to do a "lot" of multi-tasking. There are only a certain number of APIs that can be used concurrently. Having a bunch of apps listed in the fast task switcher is not multi-tasking and it does not require more ram.
You dont seem to understand what he is saying.
multitasking is being able to run different programs at the same time. The ipad 1 isnt really capable of this as it laks ram to hold those programs in memeory.
Apple solution is a cripled form of multitasking. Certain task can be done in the background and even certain programs are allowed to run completly in the background yet this all has to be coded AND remains hampered by the lack of ram.
Even in the browser you have trouble keeping open tabs as they constantly need to refresh as you switch as it runs out of memory.
The problem is Android becomes the brand and all these hardware makers become a commodity. People who have an android phone look to get a new android phone. They don't look to get an upgrade to their current phone because no upgrade exists, because the hardware makers just come up with new dumb names for products six times a year.
Thats a problem for those companies, not for the consumer. Strange your logic seems to stem from the apple point of view, not the consumer.
If you don't like your battery life, you got a point. Perhaps you can just always have a long extension cord and then you got a real winner!
So you really think an extra 256MB of ram would have destroyed the battery life on the ipad? Strange how it DOESNT do that on the iphone 4 or comparable tablets.
If you got any source to back this up, post it otherwise its a myth like the "multitasking destroys battery life"
At this point and time there are still no real competitors. There is one copycat device out there that is inferior, and a couple more potentially coming out soon... but nothing is guaranteed.
You should perhaps look beyond macrumors, plenty out there and depending on the consumer some better other worse then the ipad 1 and 2 .
I think the market clearly shows the iPhone is the best phone out there. There is no other phone that comes anywhere close to selling as much as the iPhone.
And britney spears sold a lot of almbums at a time, so at that time she was "the best"? BS of course.
The iphone is a very good iphone, but I personaly wouldnt want another to expensive for what it offers.
The iPad is worse, and will pretty much stay that way as all of the competitors are just clones of the iPad, and they don't have the advantage of a protected Verizon environment to move their product. They will have to compete against the iPad 2 for every sale they make.
Wich will be no different then for the iphone, and we both know within 2 years android outsold the iphone.
I get the notification thing, but I keep seeing some people talking about the look of the interface of IOS being dated and I don't get it. It seems like a very young and inexperienced viewpoint. Wanting change solely for the sake of change. The UI for IOS works very well. I don't want it changed just because some people are bored of looking at it. This is something you realize as you get older and more experienced in life. Change just for the sake of change is not a great deal, most of the time.
Perhaps you just dont have any experience with other UI's? That people jailbreak to specificly change certain parts of it shows there is something lacking.
I upgraded my ipad to 4.3 and already am annoyed I lost a lot of ease in the UI because there isnt a unthered jailbreak avaible.
Change for the sake of improved usability and function? I am all for it. Change of the UI just because they have used the same basic look for the UI for 5 years? No not really.
Better notifications, different user profiles, better accesibility on settings, better multitasking, better start screen , more interactivity on the home screen,...
Here I don't think you understand how "multitasking" works on IOS devices.
It is not really possible to do a "lot" of multi-tasking. There are only a certain number of APIs that can be used concurrently. Having a bunch of apps listed in the fast task switcher is not multi-tasking and it does not require more ram.
You dont seem to understand what he is saying.
multitasking is being able to run different programs at the same time. The ipad 1 isnt really capable of this as it laks ram to hold those programs in memeory.
Apple solution is a cripled form of multitasking. Certain task can be done in the background and even certain programs are allowed to run completly in the background yet this all has to be coded AND remains hampered by the lack of ram.
Even in the browser you have trouble keeping open tabs as they constantly need to refresh as you switch as it runs out of memory.
The problem is Android becomes the brand and all these hardware makers become a commodity. People who have an android phone look to get a new android phone. They don't look to get an upgrade to their current phone because no upgrade exists, because the hardware makers just come up with new dumb names for products six times a year.
Thats a problem for those companies, not for the consumer. Strange your logic seems to stem from the apple point of view, not the consumer.
If you don't like your battery life, you got a point. Perhaps you can just always have a long extension cord and then you got a real winner!
So you really think an extra 256MB of ram would have destroyed the battery life on the ipad? Strange how it DOESNT do that on the iphone 4 or comparable tablets.
If you got any source to back this up, post it otherwise its a myth like the "multitasking destroys battery life"
At this point and time there are still no real competitors. There is one copycat device out there that is inferior, and a couple more potentially coming out soon... but nothing is guaranteed.
You should perhaps look beyond macrumors, plenty out there and depending on the consumer some better other worse then the ipad 1 and 2 .
I think the market clearly shows the iPhone is the best phone out there. There is no other phone that comes anywhere close to selling as much as the iPhone.
And britney spears sold a lot of almbums at a time, so at that time she was "the best"? BS of course.
The iphone is a very good iphone, but I personaly wouldnt want another to expensive for what it offers.
The iPad is worse, and will pretty much stay that way as all of the competitors are just clones of the iPad, and they don't have the advantage of a protected Verizon environment to move their product. They will have to compete against the iPad 2 for every sale they make.
Wich will be no different then for the iphone, and we both know within 2 years android outsold the iphone.
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
skunk
May 1, 04:09 AM
While there are some racists who tried to jump on the birther bandwagon, I did see plenty of non-racists have some concern about where Obama was born, or if in Hawaii, being born there before it was a state and then being a coverup to put his age right after statehood.If those people really were non-racists, they would have ignored such questions entirely, confident in the knowledge that if anything untoward was going on, the World's Greatest Intelligence Agency� would have found it out before he even got his name on the ballot.
Moyank24
Mar 8, 03:28 AM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).
Why do you feel the need to hide behind other people's words? Why would you use a book that is 2000 years old to define your morality?
You have made multiple offensive, inflammatory, and downright laughable claims. And the only way you can back them up is by using books, studies, etc..that are so completely biased they can hardly be taken seriously.
I'm sure I would be able to find articles and studies that favor my point of view as well. But why would I need to do that? I don't need written justification to make myself feel better about my beliefs, or the way I choose to live my life.
Venture out into the real world. Read the newspaper...watch TV. Gays and Lesbians are falling in love, getting married, raising children, serving in the military, serving in Congress, teaching in our schools, practicing medicine...Just like heterosexuals. No better and no worse. And the earth continues to revolve around the sun.
But I guess in the end, it's easier to justify hate and ignorance if you have a book like the Bible and organizations like the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY (?) to stand behind.
Of course if the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY says it, it must be true. There's no need to listen to those of us in this thread who actually know what we are talking about because we are living it...not because we read an article or a book about it.
Why do you feel the need to hide behind other people's words? Why would you use a book that is 2000 years old to define your morality?
You have made multiple offensive, inflammatory, and downright laughable claims. And the only way you can back them up is by using books, studies, etc..that are so completely biased they can hardly be taken seriously.
I'm sure I would be able to find articles and studies that favor my point of view as well. But why would I need to do that? I don't need written justification to make myself feel better about my beliefs, or the way I choose to live my life.
Venture out into the real world. Read the newspaper...watch TV. Gays and Lesbians are falling in love, getting married, raising children, serving in the military, serving in Congress, teaching in our schools, practicing medicine...Just like heterosexuals. No better and no worse. And the earth continues to revolve around the sun.
But I guess in the end, it's easier to justify hate and ignorance if you have a book like the Bible and organizations like the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY (?) to stand behind.
Of course if the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY says it, it must be true. There's no need to listen to those of us in this thread who actually know what we are talking about because we are living it...not because we read an article or a book about it.
WildCowboy
Aug 17, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
asiayeah
Aug 25, 09:21 PM
When I read a lot of posts where people complain about Apple service, it seems that it is offten from non-US. Is this my imagination or does Apple need to kick the Arse of their international support groups?
:D
I am sure the customer support is not good in non-US.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
:D
I am sure the customer support is not good in non-US.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
Abstract
Jul 20, 07:42 PM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Orgy-core.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Orgy-core.
Evangelion
Jul 15, 10:32 AM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Why?
Because PC's have the PSU at the top, so it MUST be bad.
Why?
Because PC's have the PSU at the top, so it MUST be bad.
j26
Nov 29, 09:18 AM
You're welcome to audit my iPod. I guarantee you'll find nothing but legal tunes.
Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?
Put all of 'em on a Zune and "Squirt" 'em to borrowers?
Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?
Put all of 'em on a Zune and "Squirt" 'em to borrowers?
boncellis
Jul 27, 05:11 PM
I could take a stab to make a Mini double-wide :-). (Perhaps not til the weekend tho to make it pretty.)
It would work well in home entertainment setups, but not so much on the desktop, I think. I'd expect a deeper, rather than wider, chassis would be preferred.
![]()
It would work well in home entertainment setups, but not so much on the desktop, I think. I'd expect a deeper, rather than wider, chassis would be preferred.
shawnce
Jul 27, 04:11 PM
I never said otherwise.
You did say "successors" and "next generation" which I was pointing out they are not :D
You did say "successors" and "next generation" which I was pointing out they are not :D
jeanlain
Apr 12, 03:55 AM
"Insufficient content"
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
cyberdogl2
Aug 27, 05:20 PM
I see where you're coming from.
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
