skunk
Feb 28, 08:02 PM
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriageIt matters that you describe it as fornication.
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
Greek culture also endorsed pederasty!What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
MarkMS
Mar 31, 04:14 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Exactly! I've heard every single one of those arguments, except instead of a lemming ... I'm an iSheep!
And for those of you that add "customizing/theming" as a great feature to Android, please take a look at what your peers are proud of. http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Exactly! I've heard every single one of those arguments, except instead of a lemming ... I'm an iSheep!
And for those of you that add "customizing/theming" as a great feature to Android, please take a look at what your peers are proud of. http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/
wmmk
Aug 20, 01:04 AM
Anyone ever check and see if Quicktime was Universal
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
Mike84
Apr 25, 03:47 PM
Being sued and breaking the law are two different things. I can sue you for killing the tree between our yards. You didnt break any law, but I can still sue.
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
Then it would be a frivolous lawsuit and it would be dismissed.
So, there really isn't a point buddy. :D
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
Then it would be a frivolous lawsuit and it would be dismissed.
So, there really isn't a point buddy. :D
DesmoPilot
Aug 9, 09:00 PM
i have never heard of SimBin, but looking at the website, it doesn't look bad. do any of their games work in Mac OS X?
Nope, just Windows unfortunately.
Nope, just Windows unfortunately.
orkle
Nov 29, 08:45 AM
Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:
And how little the average user actually knows about it.
And how little the average user actually knows about it.
Yamcha
Mar 26, 04:00 PM
I'm looking forward to it, but what would be really amazing if on the next major release of Mac OS they add support for running .EXE files. I know there are third party applications out there to do that, but If it could be legally done and done properly where we don't see any major performance hits then it would truly be the end of using Windows for me, and I'm sure for most others..
I think that would be awesome.. But I know probably unlikely..
I think that would be awesome.. But I know probably unlikely..
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
Rt&Dzine
Feb 28, 04:49 PM
Excellent post.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
adjuster
Mar 26, 06:06 PM
There is one feature I really need--the ability to run TimeMachine on an encrypted disk. Does the full disk encryption in Lion allow Time Machine to run in real time. With Snow Leopard, Time Machine will operate only after the system is shut down.
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:43 AM
Strike:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
SiliconAddict
Aug 7, 07:41 PM
The Meh was strong in that keynote. I was looking for something explosive and found a snap bang that someone threw to the ground. Short of those top secret features :rolleyes: being something earth shattering Leopard looks to be another micro update to OS X. While any forward momentum in the OS is a good thing what we've seen of Leopard does not suggest that gulf that will be closed with Vista (After SP1 & 2 that is.) is going to be widened again with Leopard.
The things dumped into the OS are simply more addon crap. That isn't to say adding new features aren't welcome but the time is right for a serious revamp to the UI of OS X.
I'm not happy about this development. It seems as if real forward momentum in OS X has all but stalled. Like most of Apple now a days they aren't taking chances anymore with their wares be it software or hardware. They seem to focus on finding previously used ideas, slap a new coat of paint on it, buff it up to a nice shine, then give it some "fun" name and call it innovation.
Apple may have been in decline in the 90's but at least that Apple took chances. Took risks on new and innovative hardware. I want the old Apple back. . . to a point. More then anything I want to get excited in a product that is revolutionary not evolutionary. :(
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
Or they are so buggy at this point they aren't ready to demo them. That is my guess. This crap about not wanting MS to copy. Sorry but Windows is feature locked at this point. There is simply NO way for Microsoft to roll out anything new unless its such a minor thing that it would be easy to do. I really wish Apple wouldn't spit in my face and call it rain.
The things dumped into the OS are simply more addon crap. That isn't to say adding new features aren't welcome but the time is right for a serious revamp to the UI of OS X.
I'm not happy about this development. It seems as if real forward momentum in OS X has all but stalled. Like most of Apple now a days they aren't taking chances anymore with their wares be it software or hardware. They seem to focus on finding previously used ideas, slap a new coat of paint on it, buff it up to a nice shine, then give it some "fun" name and call it innovation.
Apple may have been in decline in the 90's but at least that Apple took chances. Took risks on new and innovative hardware. I want the old Apple back. . . to a point. More then anything I want to get excited in a product that is revolutionary not evolutionary. :(
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
Or they are so buggy at this point they aren't ready to demo them. That is my guess. This crap about not wanting MS to copy. Sorry but Windows is feature locked at this point. There is simply NO way for Microsoft to roll out anything new unless its such a minor thing that it would be easy to do. I really wish Apple wouldn't spit in my face and call it rain.
ChrisA
Jul 27, 12:18 PM
With things like this, my rule is: If you have to ask, then you can't do it :-(
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
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.
NY Guitarist
Apr 12, 10:20 AM
Here's what I am hearing:
http://applecritictv.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-final-cut-pro.html
This was a very good blog post.
http://applecritictv.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-final-cut-pro.html
This was a very good blog post.
vingochr
Apr 6, 02:58 PM
I've got a thread on most likely processors for the SB MBAs. A lot more powerful is more likely than the post suggests for the 13".
Here it is:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103979
Here it is:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103979
Barabas
Jul 20, 09:21 AM
Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.
mBox
Apr 6, 08:17 AM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.I work in all three worlds with NLE (Avid, Apple & Adobe). If your know what your doing, then Media Management should be as easy as pie. Now do you have something specific that irks you about FCP? For starters I instruct at a local college in the evenings. I first burn it in my students heads that they need to use an separate drive for this app.
Im just throwing in the obvious of course ;)
Im just throwing in the obvious of course ;)
EscobarFilms
Mar 26, 12:24 AM
ohh shiiit cant wait for Lion :apple: i hope the new imac will launch in july with the new OS..
bigandy
Nov 29, 08:27 AM
Universal can want all they want.
Steve ain't giving up $10 to $16 million a quarter to some music bully.
My thoughts exactly. Apple would laugh this out of the building.
Steve ain't giving up $10 to $16 million a quarter to some music bully.
My thoughts exactly. Apple would laugh this out of the building.
bigandy
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
It's going to happen, it'll happen when it happens, and the only thing we can be sure of is that people will still be complaining about them when they've arrived. :rolleyes:
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 03:03 PM
Lol if apple was a religion it would have more extremists than Islam, Judaism, and Christianity combined! :eek:
dukeblue91
Apr 6, 01:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Not if you take any one model against whatever current iPad model.
The same goes for the iPhone vs anyone else.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Not if you take any one model against whatever current iPad model.
The same goes for the iPhone vs anyone else.
bedifferent
Apr 11, 01:14 PM
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Exactly. Apple has been neglecting its professional products since the iPhone and iOS release, and focusing on consumer level products. A lot of people on MacRumors are new to Mac/Apple. For those of us who have used Mac's for 10+ years, mostly for work, we have become weary of the direction the company is taking for US, not for the average Joe. FCP was a standard at the time, for less than its competitors it offered a great GUI at a reasonable price point. The hardware and software are business investments.
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Exactly. Apple has been neglecting its professional products since the iPhone and iOS release, and focusing on consumer level products. A lot of people on MacRumors are new to Mac/Apple. For those of us who have used Mac's for 10+ years, mostly for work, we have become weary of the direction the company is taking for US, not for the average Joe. FCP was a standard at the time, for less than its competitors it offered a great GUI at a reasonable price point. The hardware and software are business investments.
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
No comments:
Post a Comment