jsw
Aug 26, 06:51 PM
Note: I believe I accidentally merged someone's (possibly a couple of people's) posts into BWhaler's post (3 above this post). Sorry. :o
Lennholm
Apr 27, 09:20 AM
This is exactly what i wanted to hear from Apple, a clarification on what the system actually does and an update that stops the info from being registered when location services is turned off.
I believe the lawsuit was simply a measure to get this clarification from Apple and now the suit will be dropped for sure.
I believe the lawsuit was simply a measure to get this clarification from Apple and now the suit will be dropped for sure.
CTMoore
Apr 5, 06:46 PM
As someone who's attended NAB yearly, (and again this year) Apple has not had a presence there since and currently are NOT on the exhibitor list for this years convention. Will take pics if I'm wrong though.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 10, 10:47 AM
Yamauchi helped design the GT-R i believe. Idk how much he contributed, but he had his hands in it.
No, Polyphony was contracted to help design the graphics and layout of the NAV screen and its various displays.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=46084&IsPgd=0
No, Polyphony was contracted to help design the graphics and layout of the NAV screen and its various displays.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=46084&IsPgd=0
Koufax80
Apr 25, 02:36 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but so what if they can tell what cell phone tower you're by??? Are you really so important/ secrative that someone knowing your location is that big of a deal?
Reventon
Aug 10, 10:47 AM
The Signature Edition is only available in Europe and Australia/NZ and not North America.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
Eduardo1971
Apr 6, 01:43 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)
Does this mean I should cancel my order on the 11" Mac Book Air 1.4GZ, I got it with 4GB ram and it's a refurb so I saved some cash. Should I wait until June.
Thanks in advance for your advise!!
Some at MR asking for hearfelt advice?
My advice: sure; why not wait.
:D
Does this mean I should cancel my order on the 11" Mac Book Air 1.4GZ, I got it with 4GB ram and it's a refurb so I saved some cash. Should I wait until June.
Thanks in advance for your advise!!
Some at MR asking for hearfelt advice?
My advice: sure; why not wait.
:D
easy4lif
Nov 28, 07:22 PM
steve jobs replied earlier this year to such nonsense
"the music companies are trying to be greedy"
I approve this messsage
"the music companies are trying to be greedy"
I approve this messsage
DStaal
Sep 13, 10:03 AM
I'm just wondering if I can drop one of these into an iMac... Are they pin-compatible? Also sort of wondering about a heat issue.
Nope - Different processor archetecture. Even if the pins were the same, the motherboards are different.
Both Clovertown and Woodcrest are 'Xeon' chips, which is a particular processor family. Chips in one processor family may be replaceable with others from that family, but generally different families are not replacable with each other. (Unless specifially designed to do so.)
Also, the iMac is a 32-bit computer, and these are 64-bit chips, reducing any possiblity to zero.
Nope - Different processor archetecture. Even if the pins were the same, the motherboards are different.
Both Clovertown and Woodcrest are 'Xeon' chips, which is a particular processor family. Chips in one processor family may be replaceable with others from that family, but generally different families are not replacable with each other. (Unless specifially designed to do so.)
Also, the iMac is a 32-bit computer, and these are 64-bit chips, reducing any possiblity to zero.
CaoCao
Feb 28, 06:47 PM
Wow. I have never, ever in my life been so tempted to troll a MacRumors thread, nor have I ever been so infuriated by the use of a set of double quotation marks.
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
2) okay, they can pretend to get married
3) We don't care what they are doing in there
5) Divorce is a terrible and tragic thing
6) The Catholic Church doesn't pretend that the people in it are perfect.
A) Maybe your feelings on the situation would be different if you actually had a girlfriend.
B) I'm interested to learn what exactly the physical and psychological risks of non-marital sex are?
You're kidding. Right?
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Definitions are useful
No, it's called "living a human lifestyle".
Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?
That is because to a Christian they aren't married. He probably doesn't because a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians is generally valid.
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
inclusivism is not inherently good and that position holds no hatred or malice
They decided not to rehire him, so?
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
2) okay, they can pretend to get married
3) We don't care what they are doing in there
5) Divorce is a terrible and tragic thing
6) The Catholic Church doesn't pretend that the people in it are perfect.
A) Maybe your feelings on the situation would be different if you actually had a girlfriend.
B) I'm interested to learn what exactly the physical and psychological risks of non-marital sex are?
You're kidding. Right?
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Definitions are useful
No, it's called "living a human lifestyle".
Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?
That is because to a Christian they aren't married. He probably doesn't because a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians is generally valid.
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
inclusivism is not inherently good and that position holds no hatred or malice
They decided not to rehire him, so?
Durendal
Apr 5, 07:16 PM
YES!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyqUj3PGHv4)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjRByLU4_MU0KvckYTE1dquz-mjCppPyGnJfbeWpsg1gzXHa-A_Qbu1UjG9b2J9S2sIJrzN5zowaZ0YzWn2bmfxtJa_0fO_flJdLa3tj_vRuOkXFHOm-oEoLRjfz9EFHnMPx1RVSrJuq2b/s400/wtf.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjRByLU4_MU0KvckYTE1dquz-mjCppPyGnJfbeWpsg1gzXHa-A_Qbu1UjG9b2J9S2sIJrzN5zowaZ0YzWn2bmfxtJa_0fO_flJdLa3tj_vRuOkXFHOm-oEoLRjfz9EFHnMPx1RVSrJuq2b/s400/wtf.jpg
vincenz
Apr 6, 10:42 AM
I'm curious to see what they have up their sleeves for this.
Eidorian
Jul 31, 12:31 PM
What I'd like to know is the upgrade options in a new tower. We're running on EFI instead of Open Firmware now.
jeanlain
Apr 12, 04:22 AM
I'm on a 2006 Mac Pro 2.66GHz.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
spazzcat
Mar 22, 01:36 PM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
CaoCao
Mar 3, 11:03 PM
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Respect my belief that it's perfectly fine, and stop making laws against me.
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
mobilehavoc
Apr 6, 02:36 PM
Your BMW looks a lot like a Yugo to me.
I kid, I kid!
:D
I don't actually drive a BMW anyway...just an Audi
I kid, I kid!
:D
I don't actually drive a BMW anyway...just an Audi
Super Dave
Aug 5, 06:26 PM
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
Too many people have dual displays (well people who shell out the dough for Apple's HD displays do) to put iSights in each one.
David :cool:
Too many people have dual displays (well people who shell out the dough for Apple's HD displays do) to put iSights in each one.
David :cool:
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
Gupster
Apr 7, 10:40 PM
d
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
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 10:40 AM
I'm a little confused at the magnitude of people's reaction here.
It's Apple. If Apple does something, it's the end of the world. If everyone else does something similar, *shrug*
Apple does well in the market place, so it behooves the tech media to attack Apple as often as their partners wish them to. Standard PR tactics.
It's Apple. If Apple does something, it's the end of the world. If everyone else does something similar, *shrug*
Apple does well in the market place, so it behooves the tech media to attack Apple as often as their partners wish them to. Standard PR tactics.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
0 comments:
Post a Comment