FF_productions
Jul 15, 12:41 AM
Exactly - this is one of the reasons I'm glad Apple is going with a minimum RAM configuration. I'd much rather buy RAM from a reputable 3rd party dealer than have to succumb myself to Apple's significant premiums. Always buy 3rd party, never from Apple. :cool:
Still, it's ridiculous that Apple's Top-Of-The-Line machines don't come STANDARD with 1 gig of ram. I can guarantee they will when they come out next month. If the MacBook Pro's can come with 1 gig of ram standard, the Mac Pro's will too. I cannot wait to see this new Mac Pro, it's new design, it's new everything. I'm getting that countdown widget...
Ok, I just got it
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/developer/wwdc2006countdown.html
Still, it's ridiculous that Apple's Top-Of-The-Line machines don't come STANDARD with 1 gig of ram. I can guarantee they will when they come out next month. If the MacBook Pro's can come with 1 gig of ram standard, the Mac Pro's will too. I cannot wait to see this new Mac Pro, it's new design, it's new everything. I'm getting that countdown widget...
Ok, I just got it
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/developer/wwdc2006countdown.html
bretm
Apr 10, 11:10 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
The other presenters just had to toss months of planning out the window and scramble to reschedule events w/less than a weeks notice during the industry's biggest annual convention. Hopefully the members of the audience that signed up to see the original line-up will be able to make it to all the reschedule events and, on top of that, everyone going to the SuperMeet has now paid money for tickets to what is nothing more than an Apple PR event.
Dick move by Apple but all will be forgiven as long as they release the holy grail of editing on Tuesday. If they preview 'iMovie Pro' lord help them...
He is asked if he will update his editing studio's workflow to the new Final Cut, and he basically danced around the question, pleaded the 5th, and made it pretty clear that he is holding back some reservations about how the industry will adapt to the changes.
To be fair to Mark (the head of Post at Bunim/Murray) there really isn't anything he could say due to the NDA. Just because what he saw of the new FCP might not lead him to believe it would work in Bunim/Murray's current workflow doesn't mean it might not be awesome for someone else's work flow. It was a tough spot for Mark to be in and I'm not exactly sure why he even kicked off the meeting with "I was there, but don't ask me about it because I'm under NDA". He could've never even have brought it up and it wouldn't have altered the course of the conversation at all.
Lethal
So Avid, Adobe and Canon spent 10 months preparing for a lecture at a FCP users group? And a FCP users group was going to be their main/only avenue for presentation? I think not. This is just another spot they will advertise at during NAB. I'm sure Avid will be at Adobe and Adobe at Avid user groups. FCP just decided to present at NAB at the last second and this was their only in.
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
The other presenters just had to toss months of planning out the window and scramble to reschedule events w/less than a weeks notice during the industry's biggest annual convention. Hopefully the members of the audience that signed up to see the original line-up will be able to make it to all the reschedule events and, on top of that, everyone going to the SuperMeet has now paid money for tickets to what is nothing more than an Apple PR event.
Dick move by Apple but all will be forgiven as long as they release the holy grail of editing on Tuesday. If they preview 'iMovie Pro' lord help them...
He is asked if he will update his editing studio's workflow to the new Final Cut, and he basically danced around the question, pleaded the 5th, and made it pretty clear that he is holding back some reservations about how the industry will adapt to the changes.
To be fair to Mark (the head of Post at Bunim/Murray) there really isn't anything he could say due to the NDA. Just because what he saw of the new FCP might not lead him to believe it would work in Bunim/Murray's current workflow doesn't mean it might not be awesome for someone else's work flow. It was a tough spot for Mark to be in and I'm not exactly sure why he even kicked off the meeting with "I was there, but don't ask me about it because I'm under NDA". He could've never even have brought it up and it wouldn't have altered the course of the conversation at all.
Lethal
So Avid, Adobe and Canon spent 10 months preparing for a lecture at a FCP users group? And a FCP users group was going to be their main/only avenue for presentation? I think not. This is just another spot they will advertise at during NAB. I'm sure Avid will be at Adobe and Adobe at Avid user groups. FCP just decided to present at NAB at the last second and this was their only in.
iGary
Aug 25, 04:36 PM
Having to go through 5 Cinema Displays, two logic boards, a new processor set, a dented new PB, 12 Apple Store visits, and 16 hours on the phone with AppleCare pretty much sums up my satisfaction with Apple's support.
They are nice and courteous, but not given the power to do much in most situations. Pass the buck is their motto.
They are nice and courteous, but not given the power to do much in most situations. Pass the buck is their motto.
RedTomato
Jul 20, 07:48 PM
Orgy-core.
That gets my vote.
Or Octopussy.
http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_o/octopussy.jpg
That gets my vote.
Or Octopussy.
http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_o/octopussy.jpg
Eriamjh1138@DAN
Mar 26, 06:12 PM
No Rosetta, no sale for me. Not ready to move on.
BigHungry04
Apr 28, 12:38 PM
I figured he was born in the United States, as Hawaii is a state and was when he was born there. Now this McCain guy, he was not born in the United States, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a US territory or protectorate, so it still counts. Maybe if he had won the presidency, someone would have made a big deal about it too. I doubt it.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Banjhiyi
Mar 26, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
rovex
Mar 22, 02:46 PM
Dude go back to school. And pay particular attention to learn about diagonal lengths and surface areas of rectangles.
I wasn't thinking straight, big deal.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
I wasn't thinking straight, big deal.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
arkmannj
Aug 5, 08:09 PM
I am excited for 10.5, mac pros, displays, core 2 duo, etc...
but for the practicle side of my wallet I feel like I've been waiting FOREVER for an airport upgrade. (as in, an upgrade to the airport extreme, express) I'm not expecting faster speeds, but it would be very nice if they could add features like
* the ability for USB 2.0 / firewire external storage devices to connect, or even like 2GB built in storage for shared files.
* streaming video
* etc :-)
but for the practicle side of my wallet I feel like I've been waiting FOREVER for an airport upgrade. (as in, an upgrade to the airport extreme, express) I'm not expecting faster speeds, but it would be very nice if they could add features like
* the ability for USB 2.0 / firewire external storage devices to connect, or even like 2GB built in storage for shared files.
* streaming video
* etc :-)
jiggie2g
Jul 14, 10:58 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.
Uhhhh Nero Burning ROM does , oops i forgot there is no Nero for Mac just plain TOAST..lol
I just love my Dual 16x NEC ND-3550A's :D ...burn baby burn.
Also if this is the Best Apple can do at these prices then they should have just went Conroe, These MacPros are going to get killed by $999 Mom and Pop's PC's from Gateway/HP/Dell.
512MB DDR2 on a $1799 PC in mid 2006 , you gotta be f**kin' kidding me. Jobs must really think you people are stupid.
man I guess I won't even have to OC my E6600 to cream that $2499 machine. This was a stupid move Apple. Pay more for Less.
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.
Uhhhh Nero Burning ROM does , oops i forgot there is no Nero for Mac just plain TOAST..lol
I just love my Dual 16x NEC ND-3550A's :D ...burn baby burn.
Also if this is the Best Apple can do at these prices then they should have just went Conroe, These MacPros are going to get killed by $999 Mom and Pop's PC's from Gateway/HP/Dell.
512MB DDR2 on a $1799 PC in mid 2006 , you gotta be f**kin' kidding me. Jobs must really think you people are stupid.
man I guess I won't even have to OC my E6600 to cream that $2499 machine. This was a stupid move Apple. Pay more for Less.
geerlingguy
Aug 16, 11:29 PM
That's great that Adobe apps runs well under Rosetta in the new Mac Pro.
It makes very tempting to buy one.
My only concern comes to any Rev.A of any hardware.
I'll wait and buy the next version of Mac Pro. I think then, even under Rosetta Adobe apps will fly in comparison to the Quad G5. Can't wait for the universal apps though.
Always a judicious choice. I know that my Dad had about 6 months of little gripes with his DP G5 (1st generation) because of fan and 'buzzing' problems. He was kind of a 'beta tester' of the new hardware until a firmware update fixed his main problems.
Plus, if the 1st generation turns out to be reliable, you could get a used 1st gen. machine for a nice deal once the 2nd gen. machines are released!
It makes very tempting to buy one.
My only concern comes to any Rev.A of any hardware.
I'll wait and buy the next version of Mac Pro. I think then, even under Rosetta Adobe apps will fly in comparison to the Quad G5. Can't wait for the universal apps though.
Always a judicious choice. I know that my Dad had about 6 months of little gripes with his DP G5 (1st generation) because of fan and 'buzzing' problems. He was kind of a 'beta tester' of the new hardware until a firmware update fixed his main problems.
Plus, if the 1st generation turns out to be reliable, you could get a used 1st gen. machine for a nice deal once the 2nd gen. machines are released!
shamino
Jul 22, 12:18 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
zacman
Apr 19, 03:29 PM
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 11:06 AM
Don't compare them either. There is a huge difference between what homosexuals do and what pedophiles do. You're the one getting on people for not comprehending language. I suggest you take your own advice.
I goofed. I misinterpreted what Lee said about sodomy. He said that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy. I thought he thought homosexual sex was not sodomy. Unfortunately, too often, when I'm impulsive, I misinterpret what others write.
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
I goofed. I misinterpreted what Lee said about sodomy. He said that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy. I thought he thought homosexual sex was not sodomy. Unfortunately, too often, when I'm impulsive, I misinterpret what others write.
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
aaronb
Sep 19, 10:51 AM
So the Apple crew is simply waiting on marketing until they release these new laptops? Exactly how much marketing needs to go into a slight update? I understand that these are 64-bit processors but the average consumer has no clue what that means to begin with. Waiting for the marketing crew seems really strange to me, should they have not already been ready for this transition by now? Just make a box on the front page that has a picture of a MBP and let it say "the fastest just got faster" or something.
CaoCao
Mar 1, 04:11 PM
You know how stupid that argument is? You are comparing physical defects to a different mental state. Physiologically, gay people are not any bit different from straight people. (IE one identical twin gay, one not cases...)
Here is a much closer analog to your view:
"I hate you for liking the color yellow. Your views are sick and your practice of having yellow things in your home is sick and wrong and immoral. A three thousand year old book written by some uneducated shepperds told me that people who like the color yellow are going to burn in Hell because someone hates them."
Do you see just how stupid this whole thing is?
Well my other options were paedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
Your analogy does not make sense because I do not hate homosexuals.
I made it quite clearly. If you don't get it, I can't help you any further.
Good to hear. Can we now assume you support marriage rights for gay people?
You have made it quite clear you suffer from a dearth of cogency.
That is their problem, not yours.
You could say the same about the Catholic church. My link was specifically in reply to being asked for evidence - actually proof - that Plato was a homosexual. As for supporting bad stuff, the US Constitution was once quite content to support slavery and the subordination of women, and so were many of the founding fathers, both of the early church and the USA.
What absolute bollocks! Homosexuality does not need treatment, since it is not a disease.
Ah, let us define slavery, does: "slavery is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person" work for you?
Why not? Whether gays are treated equally under the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with how you feel about them. Whether you grant them the human dignity of being treated equally has absolutely nothing to do with your Catholic dogma. You are making excuses.
Another red herring: nobody is asking you to be a caregiver, simply to stop pontificating about something you clearly know very little about. You are simply broadcasting your prejudices to no useful effect: you are not going to make anyone heterosexual by trashing their feelings and their very nature, you are just going to add to their discomfiture.
What a pity you did not learn from her to keep your own counsel.
Feeble. Do you pontificate about sky-diving too?
I have read many of Plato's dialogues, in Greek, and studied - and continue to study - Ancient Greek culture in depth. Your Dr Gould is bringing his own prejudices to the table. He should know better.
Homosexual friendship. Right.
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a man
@CoCo & Bill: Please, just stop arguing with bogus reasons. The Catholic Church has everything wrong and upside down and only to control its followers. You two are a perfect example thereof.
CoCo, heterosexuality is not the norm, at least not outside our social understanding. In ancient Greece and Rome, sexuality wasn't even up for discussion. You followed a certain social conduct and explored your sexuality as you saw fit and didn't question it or that of others. When Christianity started taking over the laws and moral standards, they made it so they could control everything people do. Your reasoning comes from the same source as those who wrote the medical journals that condemn homosexuality as a mental illness. They did so out of fear of the unknown - the very essence th the Catholic Church uses to control its followers.
And Bill, please go out and live a little. Get a nice girlfriend and explore your and her sexuality a little and see how much more relaxed your attitude about the world can be. There's more to life than waiting for God's instructions. He certainly wouldn't want you to waste your life on such trivial things like analyzing other people's sexuality.
You two need to expand your world view and accept that there are plenty of things that make you uncomfortable, but there is no reason to condemn them so exhaustingly. You cannot reverse progress and you certainly cannot control the lives of other people.
There are plenty of folks in Northern Africa that can vouch for that.
Nay, the Romans and Greeks failed, they are retrogress
Here is a much closer analog to your view:
"I hate you for liking the color yellow. Your views are sick and your practice of having yellow things in your home is sick and wrong and immoral. A three thousand year old book written by some uneducated shepperds told me that people who like the color yellow are going to burn in Hell because someone hates them."
Do you see just how stupid this whole thing is?
Well my other options were paedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
Your analogy does not make sense because I do not hate homosexuals.
I made it quite clearly. If you don't get it, I can't help you any further.
Good to hear. Can we now assume you support marriage rights for gay people?
You have made it quite clear you suffer from a dearth of cogency.
That is their problem, not yours.
You could say the same about the Catholic church. My link was specifically in reply to being asked for evidence - actually proof - that Plato was a homosexual. As for supporting bad stuff, the US Constitution was once quite content to support slavery and the subordination of women, and so were many of the founding fathers, both of the early church and the USA.
What absolute bollocks! Homosexuality does not need treatment, since it is not a disease.
Ah, let us define slavery, does: "slavery is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person" work for you?
Why not? Whether gays are treated equally under the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with how you feel about them. Whether you grant them the human dignity of being treated equally has absolutely nothing to do with your Catholic dogma. You are making excuses.
Another red herring: nobody is asking you to be a caregiver, simply to stop pontificating about something you clearly know very little about. You are simply broadcasting your prejudices to no useful effect: you are not going to make anyone heterosexual by trashing their feelings and their very nature, you are just going to add to their discomfiture.
What a pity you did not learn from her to keep your own counsel.
Feeble. Do you pontificate about sky-diving too?
I have read many of Plato's dialogues, in Greek, and studied - and continue to study - Ancient Greek culture in depth. Your Dr Gould is bringing his own prejudices to the table. He should know better.
Homosexual friendship. Right.
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a man
@CoCo & Bill: Please, just stop arguing with bogus reasons. The Catholic Church has everything wrong and upside down and only to control its followers. You two are a perfect example thereof.
CoCo, heterosexuality is not the norm, at least not outside our social understanding. In ancient Greece and Rome, sexuality wasn't even up for discussion. You followed a certain social conduct and explored your sexuality as you saw fit and didn't question it or that of others. When Christianity started taking over the laws and moral standards, they made it so they could control everything people do. Your reasoning comes from the same source as those who wrote the medical journals that condemn homosexuality as a mental illness. They did so out of fear of the unknown - the very essence th the Catholic Church uses to control its followers.
And Bill, please go out and live a little. Get a nice girlfriend and explore your and her sexuality a little and see how much more relaxed your attitude about the world can be. There's more to life than waiting for God's instructions. He certainly wouldn't want you to waste your life on such trivial things like analyzing other people's sexuality.
You two need to expand your world view and accept that there are plenty of things that make you uncomfortable, but there is no reason to condemn them so exhaustingly. You cannot reverse progress and you certainly cannot control the lives of other people.
There are plenty of folks in Northern Africa that can vouch for that.
Nay, the Romans and Greeks failed, they are retrogress
CoffeeMonkey
Mar 22, 02:12 PM
Widescreen is great for movie watching, and the spec-lover in me is all over that... but it�s not very flexible for portrait use. (Which is how you hold a tablet one-handed, and is how you see the most content on a web page or scrolling document.)
I hear that the PlayBook is really easy to hold one-handed. If you know what I mean.
I hear that the PlayBook is really easy to hold one-handed. If you know what I mean.
Stella
Nov 29, 09:31 AM
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
dernhelm
Nov 29, 07:24 AM
Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 03:21 AM
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
My handicap puts me in a minority full of people who think like Marxists. They'll tell you that they're the innocent, persecuted ones and that everyone else is the evil oppressor. Newsflash: Good and evil are on both sides. The "victims" aren't all good and the "persecutors" aren't all bad.
As I told you guys, I think that moral liberty consists of the ability to adopt the means to do the good. Moral liberty is not license. License causes chaos.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
My handicap puts me in a minority full of people who think like Marxists. They'll tell you that they're the innocent, persecuted ones and that everyone else is the evil oppressor. Newsflash: Good and evil are on both sides. The "victims" aren't all good and the "persecutors" aren't all bad.
As I told you guys, I think that moral liberty consists of the ability to adopt the means to do the good. Moral liberty is not license. License causes chaos.
twoodcc
Nov 12, 10:19 AM
Sony have set a new release date: November 24th (this year, if you were wondering). So then, 12 days to go, unless you're one of the lucky ones who's already managed to get a copy ;)
:apple:
do you have a link for that? if that is correct then i'm happy. i'm looking forward to this game
:apple:
do you have a link for that? if that is correct then i'm happy. i'm looking forward to this game
skunk
Aug 6, 01:39 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
Joe2000
Aug 6, 06:08 AM
What about TV Show downloads in the UK? Pleeeeaaaase!!! :rolleyes:
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.