arkitect
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
Just do a Google search for 'obama birth certificate layers' and you'll see that I'm not the only one who downloaded a file with multiple layers or objects or whatever.
And while you are Googling you may even come across explanations for the objects in a single layer pdf…
But why bother with that, eh?
Linky… (http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/)
And while you are Googling you may even come across explanations for the objects in a single layer pdf…
But why bother with that, eh?
Linky… (http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/)
thibaulthalpern
Mar 31, 10:14 PM
Probably what bothers me the most about the discourse that Android is open is the underlying logic that is an implicit (or perhaps really explicit, depending on who is touting that discourse) assumption that it is democratic, liberal, progressive, and for "the people" and thus prevents a "draconian future" from happening because instead of letting corporations dictate our digital worlds, the people will a) have a say in it and b) have a choice.
Baloney!
This discourse makes a false link between software being open source and political ideology. The two are not necessarily corresponding. And furthermore, that Android is actually open source is highly debatable but I won't go there.
Why do so many technophiles fall for the discourse that open means choice means freedom mean democracy discourse? It's all BALONEY! Google isn't really interested in protecting your freedom, democracy etc.. It's really interested in surviving and making money. Let's try not to fall AGAIN for that political cover.
In this case, I find Apple much more honest. They don't talk about political ideologies like freedom, democracy etc. All they say is they want to make devices that are friendly and easy to use. They don't couch their products in political ideological terms.
Baloney!
This discourse makes a false link between software being open source and political ideology. The two are not necessarily corresponding. And furthermore, that Android is actually open source is highly debatable but I won't go there.
Why do so many technophiles fall for the discourse that open means choice means freedom mean democracy discourse? It's all BALONEY! Google isn't really interested in protecting your freedom, democracy etc.. It's really interested in surviving and making money. Let's try not to fall AGAIN for that political cover.
In this case, I find Apple much more honest. They don't talk about political ideologies like freedom, democracy etc. All they say is they want to make devices that are friendly and easy to use. They don't couch their products in political ideological terms.
MacRumors
Aug 11, 10:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Despite being uncharacteristic of the secretive Steve Jobs we have grown to know, AppleInsider reports that the Apple CEO has been boasting about Apple's upcoming phone offering (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1959) to his inner circle. Apparently, Steve's own excitement over the product has lead him to produce a few "zealous ramblings" dating back as early as this past spring.
AppleInsider also offers a little more information (although cryptic) on the characteristics of the phone.
One person familiar with the ongoings believes the Apple cofounder has commissioned the release of cell phone prototypes to at least two potential OEM manufacturing partners in recent months. Current designs are said to conform to Apple's integrated model and leverage its tightly-knit digital media franchises, that person added.
In addition, AppleInsider quotes a source who states that the phone is indeed set to launch "earlier than some people may be expecting, in the form of a 'big bang' introduction that will catch even some insiders off-guard." ThinkSecret has previously stated that the phone has seen delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060330174059.shtml) that could set it back as far as next year, whereas Engadget has recently stated that the phone could arrive as early as this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml).
Despite being uncharacteristic of the secretive Steve Jobs we have grown to know, AppleInsider reports that the Apple CEO has been boasting about Apple's upcoming phone offering (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1959) to his inner circle. Apparently, Steve's own excitement over the product has lead him to produce a few "zealous ramblings" dating back as early as this past spring.
AppleInsider also offers a little more information (although cryptic) on the characteristics of the phone.
One person familiar with the ongoings believes the Apple cofounder has commissioned the release of cell phone prototypes to at least two potential OEM manufacturing partners in recent months. Current designs are said to conform to Apple's integrated model and leverage its tightly-knit digital media franchises, that person added.
In addition, AppleInsider quotes a source who states that the phone is indeed set to launch "earlier than some people may be expecting, in the form of a 'big bang' introduction that will catch even some insiders off-guard." ThinkSecret has previously stated that the phone has seen delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060330174059.shtml) that could set it back as far as next year, whereas Engadget has recently stated that the phone could arrive as early as this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml).
Bosunsfate
Aug 8, 12:39 AM
:p
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
skunk
Mar 3, 01:28 PM
But, but, but we'll have nobody to argue with... :(
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 18, 12:55 PM
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/08/18/gt5_date_and_blue_ps3/
New pics and stuff.
An official feature list is nice too:
2011-03-26T17:57:34
Gisele Bundchen and husband
Moreover, Tom Brady will also
Gisele Bundchen and Tom Brady
New pics and stuff.
An official feature list is nice too:
dclocke
Sep 19, 09:41 AM
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
Well, I've been on MacRumors since last week and I'm already tired of posts telling me what I really need. I don't recall seeing posts saying Yonah was crap. Most people just want to feel like they are making a good investment on an expensive piece of equipment that may be around for 3-4+ years. I would like a laptop with a 64-bit processor. Period. I don't care what you think I need. The problem with posts like this are that they waste my time, and the time of other users who are looking for information on the release of the new MBP models.
Edit: I should add, however, that if anyone is willing to donate the money for me to purchase a new MBP, I will gladly accept all advice on said purchase.
Well, I've been on MacRumors since last week and I'm already tired of posts telling me what I really need. I don't recall seeing posts saying Yonah was crap. Most people just want to feel like they are making a good investment on an expensive piece of equipment that may be around for 3-4+ years. I would like a laptop with a 64-bit processor. Period. I don't care what you think I need. The problem with posts like this are that they waste my time, and the time of other users who are looking for information on the release of the new MBP models.
Edit: I should add, however, that if anyone is willing to donate the money for me to purchase a new MBP, I will gladly accept all advice on said purchase.
GuitarDTO
Mar 31, 07:47 PM
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
cgmpowers
Jul 15, 12:24 PM
Has anyone considered this as to why Apple 'maybe' including two optical drives? We have external lightscribe 'superdrives' from Lacie (and others) but haven't seen one by Apple yet. That'd be a nice feature. So that's the first drive. The second optical drive is probably that BlueRay drive (massive storage capability compared to the other optical drive, and probably NOT capable of Lightscribing).
Other thoughts, I do agree it'd be nice to have four bays for hard drives but hard drive sizes are increasing again. I'd be very happy with two 500 or 600 gb hard drives (which is what I'll be ordering).
1 GB of ram min. is a must, I'm opting for at least 4 GB.
I also don't care if its 2.66 Ghz or 3.00 Ghz as long as its a quad (two dual core).. I just need an Intel MacPro soon.. My G4 1ghz machines are SO MUCH showing its age..
Other thoughts, I do agree it'd be nice to have four bays for hard drives but hard drive sizes are increasing again. I'd be very happy with two 500 or 600 gb hard drives (which is what I'll be ordering).
1 GB of ram min. is a must, I'm opting for at least 4 GB.
I also don't care if its 2.66 Ghz or 3.00 Ghz as long as its a quad (two dual core).. I just need an Intel MacPro soon.. My G4 1ghz machines are SO MUCH showing its age..
charlituna
Apr 6, 08:22 PM
I've posted several predictions over the past few months throughout this tread at Cinema5D:
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I took a look at the post and while I think your ideas are well thought out and very 'Apple' there are a few points that I disagree with.
First off the notion that Apple has to match QuickTime on Windows and Mac. I don't see that they do so I won't be shocked if they don't. Or they might do another QT Pro (but i doubt they would let you use your old QT7 key)
Also on the whole timeline issue. I don't see it as Apple changing one for the other. What I see is the user having a choice. They did this in iMovie so why not in FCS. Let folks work the way they feel is most efficient whether that is single line, flowchart etc. Same with how some of the tools function. Leave the old way and add the new one. Maybe both on the screen or perhaps a preference that allows you to use 'classic tools'.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of them adding Aperture to the package, but I agree that they could and should have some kind of catalog program or mode. Something that could perhaps bridge the components and even perhaps output from other programs like Premiere, Maya etc even Logic Studio. It might even allow for importing and logging without having to open Final Cut and allow you to put in Meta data like location, names of people in shot, etc. Stuff that would make that iMovie People Search etc viable tools.
And while I like the idea of a plugin store I'm not sure it would be separate from the Mac App Store, particularly if this version of FCS required at least Snow Leo. even if it was its own face I could definitely see Apple putting it into that pay system.
And one thing you didn't mention that I think is plausible is incorporating FCServer into the set rather than as a stand alone sku. Perhaps not within the programs but put that disk in the box as well. if Lion is any example, Apple seems to be getting away from separating Server functionality and having that software in the box as well could help those on the fence about switching. Especially if the whole thing was no more that the current $999 (a little less would be even better)
gisele bundchen and tom brady
Gisele Bundchen amp; Tom Brady:
Gisele Bundchen pics Gisele
9 Mar 2011 . Tom Brady showed
Gisele Bundchen and Tom Brady
Gisele Bundchen amp; Tom Brady:
Gisele Bundchen and Tom Brady
GISELE BUNDCHEN AND TOM BRADY
quot;I saw Gisele Bundchen and Tom
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I took a look at the post and while I think your ideas are well thought out and very 'Apple' there are a few points that I disagree with.
First off the notion that Apple has to match QuickTime on Windows and Mac. I don't see that they do so I won't be shocked if they don't. Or they might do another QT Pro (but i doubt they would let you use your old QT7 key)
Also on the whole timeline issue. I don't see it as Apple changing one for the other. What I see is the user having a choice. They did this in iMovie so why not in FCS. Let folks work the way they feel is most efficient whether that is single line, flowchart etc. Same with how some of the tools function. Leave the old way and add the new one. Maybe both on the screen or perhaps a preference that allows you to use 'classic tools'.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of them adding Aperture to the package, but I agree that they could and should have some kind of catalog program or mode. Something that could perhaps bridge the components and even perhaps output from other programs like Premiere, Maya etc even Logic Studio. It might even allow for importing and logging without having to open Final Cut and allow you to put in Meta data like location, names of people in shot, etc. Stuff that would make that iMovie People Search etc viable tools.
And while I like the idea of a plugin store I'm not sure it would be separate from the Mac App Store, particularly if this version of FCS required at least Snow Leo. even if it was its own face I could definitely see Apple putting it into that pay system.
And one thing you didn't mention that I think is plausible is incorporating FCServer into the set rather than as a stand alone sku. Perhaps not within the programs but put that disk in the box as well. if Lion is any example, Apple seems to be getting away from separating Server functionality and having that software in the box as well could help those on the fence about switching. Especially if the whole thing was no more that the current $999 (a little less would be even better)
smiddlehurst
Mar 31, 03:15 PM
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:27 PM
I'm with you on that. I'm pretty sure Front Row is gone for good. Instead, look for iTunes full screen mode. Alternatively, I could see Lion gaining the ability to run iOS apps in some fashion, with the AppleTV interface being one option.
I hope it's not killed. It's a neglected feature with so much potential, and it would be nice to see Apple do something with it. I was hoping they'd port the Apple TV interface into it. Plex and the other similar things just aren't quite right and lack the simplicity of front row. And iTunes is already a bloated slow piece of crap that needs a full re-write and a healthy diet. I get that it's the gateway app for Apple into Windows for their echo system, but the Windows version is worse than the Mac version. There has to be a way to clean it's gutters, but don't put anything more in there.
I hope it's not killed. It's a neglected feature with so much potential, and it would be nice to see Apple do something with it. I was hoping they'd port the Apple TV interface into it. Plex and the other similar things just aren't quite right and lack the simplicity of front row. And iTunes is already a bloated slow piece of crap that needs a full re-write and a healthy diet. I get that it's the gateway app for Apple into Windows for their echo system, but the Windows version is worse than the Mac version. There has to be a way to clean it's gutters, but don't put anything more in there.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 11:29 AM
I certainly realize that the circumstances are different, but the fact remains, we launched missiles at another country.
You've been doing it since the 1940s without congressional approval. Why so concerned about it now? Why this particular president? Were you personally concerned when it was done in Bosnia or Iraq? Do you realise that missiles have been launched into Pakistan from drones for many years, yet no declaration of war on Pakistan...
Or are you just parroting the latest conservative reason to oppose Obama's actions? Obama: whatever he's for, I'm against. Is that it?
You've been doing it since the 1940s without congressional approval. Why so concerned about it now? Why this particular president? Were you personally concerned when it was done in Bosnia or Iraq? Do you realise that missiles have been launched into Pakistan from drones for many years, yet no declaration of war on Pakistan...
Or are you just parroting the latest conservative reason to oppose Obama's actions? Obama: whatever he's for, I'm against. Is that it?
Popeye206
Apr 11, 11:28 AM
Cool... I'll wait. Nothing wrong with my iPhone4 and in September/October I'd have a better chance of an early out with AT&T.
Besides... with it being delayed until September, maybe we'll get more than we think with the iPhone 5 update? iOS5 should keep us busy over the summer anyway with new toys for our current iPhones. :)
Besides... with it being delayed until September, maybe we'll get more than we think with the iPhone 5 update? iOS5 should keep us busy over the summer anyway with new toys for our current iPhones. :)
nagromme
Aug 25, 05:02 PM
I have always wondered if Apple's past industry record on support was really accurate. I think that Apple had such a loyal following of users that they tended to give Apple rosey marks for what most would classify as just average support.
A very logical theory--and sometimes true, no doubt--but three possible points to counter that:
* There is NOT a pattern of Mac users tending to hide their dissatisfaction--not even with even the smallest thing Apple does wrong. At least, not on these forums :D
* Consumer Reports (and PC Magazine too to some extent) break down the numbers in quantifiable ways: like whether Apple support solved the problem or not, and how long you had to wait on hold. It's not just "subjective impressions" being gathered. These are professional surveys after all.
* People aren't just loyal out of the blue, they're loyal because Apple HAS done well by them. People being happy on Mac is a FAIR factor, I think, not an unfair one. (The fact that Mac users like Apple/Macs so much is sometimes used as a REASON to claim that Apple/Macs don't deserve it. That's a little backwards at best.)
Nonetheless, I think you have a point about Switchers being an increasing group. I'm not sure exactly HOW that affects the outcome, but I think that it must, and that it's something Apple must adapt to.
As for this past month--I don't see any unusual pattern of complaints, personally. Things like that always fluctuate, and if there IS an increase in the last few weeks, I bet it's not the first such, nor the last.
For the record, my own experience: I have had Apple bend over backwards for me and offer better service (even free not-warranty repair for wear-and-tear) than they were bound to do. I have also had some frustration with getting canned responses from the first-level techs (at other companies too)--but I politely but firmly move up the ladder!
A very logical theory--and sometimes true, no doubt--but three possible points to counter that:
* There is NOT a pattern of Mac users tending to hide their dissatisfaction--not even with even the smallest thing Apple does wrong. At least, not on these forums :D
* Consumer Reports (and PC Magazine too to some extent) break down the numbers in quantifiable ways: like whether Apple support solved the problem or not, and how long you had to wait on hold. It's not just "subjective impressions" being gathered. These are professional surveys after all.
* People aren't just loyal out of the blue, they're loyal because Apple HAS done well by them. People being happy on Mac is a FAIR factor, I think, not an unfair one. (The fact that Mac users like Apple/Macs so much is sometimes used as a REASON to claim that Apple/Macs don't deserve it. That's a little backwards at best.)
Nonetheless, I think you have a point about Switchers being an increasing group. I'm not sure exactly HOW that affects the outcome, but I think that it must, and that it's something Apple must adapt to.
As for this past month--I don't see any unusual pattern of complaints, personally. Things like that always fluctuate, and if there IS an increase in the last few weeks, I bet it's not the first such, nor the last.
For the record, my own experience: I have had Apple bend over backwards for me and offer better service (even free not-warranty repair for wear-and-tear) than they were bound to do. I have also had some frustration with getting canned responses from the first-level techs (at other companies too)--but I politely but firmly move up the ladder!
slackpacker
Apr 10, 07:56 AM
Are you speculating or have you just disobeyed your NDA? ;-)
speculating from what the video showed and a little past history industry knowledge
speculating from what the video showed and a little past history industry knowledge
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 06:01 PM
My guess is that it won't happen until 07
I have my money on 06. Tiger was an especially API-heavy release. It introduced Spotlight, Dashboard, and Automator, which all depend on developers to extend them. In addition, it introduced other technologies of interest to developers, such as Core Image and Core Video.
If we look at the Leopard rumors, we can see the following features being feasible:
*Unified Interface
*Windows Virtualization
*New Finder
*BitTorrent
*iChat with Phone Calling
*Maps application
*Random Application Updates
*Improved Speech capabilities
*Collaboration API ("Core Collaboration?")
Now lets narrow that down to features of interest to developers:
*Unified Interface
*BitTorrent
*Collaboration API
Not such big changes. Unless there are some wild cards in there (and I hope there will be!) that are developer-centric, this is a pretty easy release for developers to swallow. This will be a consumer-centric release.
I have my money on 06. Tiger was an especially API-heavy release. It introduced Spotlight, Dashboard, and Automator, which all depend on developers to extend them. In addition, it introduced other technologies of interest to developers, such as Core Image and Core Video.
If we look at the Leopard rumors, we can see the following features being feasible:
*Unified Interface
*Windows Virtualization
*New Finder
*BitTorrent
*iChat with Phone Calling
*Maps application
*Random Application Updates
*Improved Speech capabilities
*Collaboration API ("Core Collaboration?")
Now lets narrow that down to features of interest to developers:
*Unified Interface
*BitTorrent
*Collaboration API
Not such big changes. Unless there are some wild cards in there (and I hope there will be!) that are developer-centric, this is a pretty easy release for developers to swallow. This will be a consumer-centric release.
Thomas Veil
Mar 17, 01:32 PM
Agreed. I'm getting tired of these sensational, histrionic and downright dishonest threads.Me too. It's getting so I can open the thread, look at the first couple of sentences and realize the rest isn't worth spending my time on.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 08:23 AM
Would be a very long keynote too:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff
Strike:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff
Strike:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
AidenShaw
Aug 23, 08:15 AM
My Quad G5 is dead silent all the time. Those noisy Quads should have been sent off for repair. I was told the Quad in the Santa Clara Apple Store was also very loud. That is not normal. Properly serviced they run very silent.
dbA ? A system with 9 fans isn't going to be silent, period.
Are your systems in a room with a lot of ambient noise? (A wind-tunnel G4 sounds quiet at Best Buy, yet in my den I can clearly hear the fluid-bearing drive in my Yonah dual... ;) )
dbA ? A system with 9 fans isn't going to be silent, period.
Are your systems in a room with a lot of ambient noise? (A wind-tunnel G4 sounds quiet at Best Buy, yet in my den I can clearly hear the fluid-bearing drive in my Yonah dual... ;) )
chatin
Aug 22, 09:08 PM
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
This is one of the drawbacks of using a server CPU on the desktop. In lights-off Xserve this would not matter as most of the data is already cached in memory.
I think there might be lights out for future MacPro Xeons if AMD where to catch up in the race.
:rolleyes:
This is one of the drawbacks of using a server CPU on the desktop. In lights-off Xserve this would not matter as most of the data is already cached in memory.
I think there might be lights out for future MacPro Xeons if AMD where to catch up in the race.
:rolleyes:
KnightWRX
Apr 8, 04:29 AM
So no one is questionning this rumor at all ? We're just to accept as fact that "apparently" based on the sayings of "one guy who works at BB with pimples on his face says" ?
Before everyone jumps the gun and says "BB sucks! They deserve this!" can we at least get some kind of confirmation ? After all, they still advertise them on the web :
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Apple%26%23174%3B+-+iPad%26%23174%3B+2+with+Wi-Fi+%2B+3G+-+16GB+(Verizon+Wireless)+-+White/2341061.p?id=1218321299972&skuId=2341061
Or since there's a rumor these guys might have "slighted" Apple, we are to immediately and blindly follow in the witch burning ? Macrumors, the objectivity astounds.
Before everyone jumps the gun and says "BB sucks! They deserve this!" can we at least get some kind of confirmation ? After all, they still advertise them on the web :
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Apple%26%23174%3B+-+iPad%26%23174%3B+2+with+Wi-Fi+%2B+3G+-+16GB+(Verizon+Wireless)+-+White/2341061.p?id=1218321299972&skuId=2341061
Or since there's a rumor these guys might have "slighted" Apple, we are to immediately and blindly follow in the witch burning ? Macrumors, the objectivity astounds.
sotorious
Apr 11, 01:49 PM
Is that source creditable. I was thinking of making the jump ship to an iphone try it out for a year, but the thought of waiting till june to get a phone was a killer in it self. Now waiting till October is def a no go. I already have my phone for a year and that is way to long just for looking at the same phone that whole time.
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
