FreeState
Mar 26, 02:03 AM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
THX1139
Jul 13, 03:15 AM
We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
balamw
Apr 6, 03:21 PM
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:49 AM
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
TBH, I've never used music sharing sites. I have actually obtained physical copies of the original CD and ripped that. Other hard to find songs I do buy. So, your whole napster deal doesn't apply to me.
As per tethering, hell to the NO am I changing to a tiered plan.
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
TBH, I've never used music sharing sites. I have actually obtained physical copies of the original CD and ripped that. Other hard to find songs I do buy. So, your whole napster deal doesn't apply to me.
As per tethering, hell to the NO am I changing to a tiered plan.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:37 PM
The reason I'm agnostic is because there is no evidence of God(s), but I'm open to the possibility. As of yet, no one has made a good case. It always comes down to the leap of faith. And the only reason to take the leap of faith is because that person needs to believe in a god for some reason.
CHROMEDOME
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
Sweet...Octo-core.
djfern
Sep 12, 03:51 PM
Well, i see it like this. iTV is just the beginning of something quite new and quite big for apple. Compare it to the release of the original iPod - black and white, audio only, expensive, small capacity. The killer thing about the iPod was less about it's features than it's interface and operability with itunes. It made something - portable music player - easier and more elegant.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
Eraserhead
Mar 28, 02:11 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Rocketman
Mar 18, 12:25 PM
This is a simple and cheap way for AT&T to address the most abusive users in a way they give themselves the choice.
Why now? It may have iOS 4.3 as a small factor, but the larger factor is uptake on (fully paid) iPad data plans is so brisk and invites more legitimate use of the network, they need to create network capacity fast, before they install more backhaul or towers. This is that way.
A small percentage of users really are using the bulk of variable bandwidth.
Rocketman
Why now? It may have iOS 4.3 as a small factor, but the larger factor is uptake on (fully paid) iPad data plans is so brisk and invites more legitimate use of the network, they need to create network capacity fast, before they install more backhaul or towers. This is that way.
A small percentage of users really are using the bulk of variable bandwidth.
Rocketman
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:45 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:06 AM
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
ender land
Apr 23, 10:50 PM
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
kdawg
Apr 6, 11:39 PM
Finder - It works different from explorer. Not better, Not worse. Different. Both have features that the other is lacking
The lack of embedded shortcut keys in system menus. Especially to activate them File Open Etc Etc. I used them all the time... Especially with a dialog box for Open or Cancel or Save an Cancel on Pop-up dialog boxes. You cannot tab or arrow through the choices.
No right click without an external mouse. Apple's solution on the multitouch pad is buggy - Still drives me nuts after all these years.
The lack of embedded shortcut keys in system menus. Especially to activate them File Open Etc Etc. I used them all the time... Especially with a dialog box for Open or Cancel or Save an Cancel on Pop-up dialog boxes. You cannot tab or arrow through the choices.
No right click without an external mouse. Apple's solution on the multitouch pad is buggy - Still drives me nuts after all these years.
Nuvi
Apr 13, 04:40 AM
You can ignore this if you like; I've been lead to believe that Final Cut Pro X is the Final Cut Suit. There will be no separate applications like Color, Compressor, Soundtrack Pro etc. Regarding the upgrade pricing, apparently there won't be one since "FCPX is already priced the same as FCS3 upgrade." Regarding the delivery methods, it seems that App Store is the only option. When questioned about the delivery of multi-gigabyte downloads, it seems that App Store will be the one and only place to get Apple SOFTWARE (not just applications) in the future.
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Backtothemac:
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
all pcs are is snot... he is right.. now leave... cease and desist you s.o.b. PROPAGANDA STARTED THE HOLOCAUST, AND YOU ARE GIVING PROPOGANDA... arn this is a personal attack and is totally fair... let me speak my peace!
Backtothemac:
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
all pcs are is snot... he is right.. now leave... cease and desist you s.o.b. PROPAGANDA STARTED THE HOLOCAUST, AND YOU ARE GIVING PROPOGANDA... arn this is a personal attack and is totally fair... let me speak my peace!
TheGeekNextDoor
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Why do they have to charge for tethering? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I tether a lot, I will use more than 2 gigs in a month. Charge me extra at that point. At least they now give you 2 Gig extra for your tethering money. I would just prefer to not pay for that extra 2 gig until I need it. I only need to tether once a month at best, so I don't want to pay for a bunch of tethering. I also don't want to leave my unlimited plan. Sadly, I have never gone over 2 GB, but I like knowing that I don't have to worry about it.
Ugg
Apr 15, 11:10 AM
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
That's what's so sad. Victims are victims no matter where they live.
One thing I find encouraging is that so many social moderates are coming out and saying, "Hey, enough of the gayness already." That means that the message is finally getting across.
It will take more videos, more personal appeals by "real" people but I think we're finally at a point where being gay is ok.
It's sad that caliber can't see it that way. I think he's simply too young to understand what a struggle it has been since Stonewall.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
That's what's so sad. Victims are victims no matter where they live.
One thing I find encouraging is that so many social moderates are coming out and saying, "Hey, enough of the gayness already." That means that the message is finally getting across.
It will take more videos, more personal appeals by "real" people but I think we're finally at a point where being gay is ok.
It's sad that caliber can't see it that way. I think he's simply too young to understand what a struggle it has been since Stonewall.
matticus008
Mar 20, 11:01 PM
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
I'm not here to impose what I think is right. I think that all electronic music-playing devices should support all of the DRM models so that regardless of where I get my music legally, I can use it. I don't like that I can have an mp3 player that can't play the music I buy on iTunes, but I've already written the companies involved, as well as my Senator and state and national level Congressmen. I've worked with people who make the decisions about law to bring this issue to their attention. That's not the point here. No one is stopping you from reasoning or thinking, even though it's clear you have chosen not to do so. But that's your right. It's not that I disagree, it's that the law disagrees. Independent of that, on a fundamental, moral level, breaking your word (wrt the iTunes TOS) cannot be morally justified. Don't give your consent and agreement if you don't intend to uphold it. Where is your moral compass now? If you don't value your word and don't care about breaking the law and you want to break DRM or pirate music, go ahead. But don't come here and say that it's right to do it, because it's simply not. There are legal ways to address your concerns, and you are not using them. There's no excuse.
EDIT: missed this little gem earlier...
I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you.
I would encourage my children to question and think and come to their own conclusions, just as I encourage students to do in my volunteer work. I'd expect them to stand up for what they believe in, and if they find an injustice, they should do what they can to stop it. That said, if they break the law in doing so, they must also know that there are consequences for that and accept them.
But what you are proposing is not questioning, it's self-serving rationalization. I'm not proposing that anyone roll over and agree with me, because I don't need anyone to agree with me. The law isn't something to agree with or disagree with, there's no room for debate. I expect people to question the law and hold their government accountable, and to act for change when appropriate. That is separate from deciding that the law isn't a good one and just not following it, based on your judgment. It doesn't free you from the consequences. If someone decides that the law that says you stop when the light is red is a bad law and just keeps going, what they just did is wrong, whether or not they get caught or prosecuted. If you do get pulled over, your personal idea that the law is stupid is not going to get you off the hook and you are very much responsible for paying the fines/doing the time.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
I'm not here to impose what I think is right. I think that all electronic music-playing devices should support all of the DRM models so that regardless of where I get my music legally, I can use it. I don't like that I can have an mp3 player that can't play the music I buy on iTunes, but I've already written the companies involved, as well as my Senator and state and national level Congressmen. I've worked with people who make the decisions about law to bring this issue to their attention. That's not the point here. No one is stopping you from reasoning or thinking, even though it's clear you have chosen not to do so. But that's your right. It's not that I disagree, it's that the law disagrees. Independent of that, on a fundamental, moral level, breaking your word (wrt the iTunes TOS) cannot be morally justified. Don't give your consent and agreement if you don't intend to uphold it. Where is your moral compass now? If you don't value your word and don't care about breaking the law and you want to break DRM or pirate music, go ahead. But don't come here and say that it's right to do it, because it's simply not. There are legal ways to address your concerns, and you are not using them. There's no excuse.
EDIT: missed this little gem earlier...
I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you.
I would encourage my children to question and think and come to their own conclusions, just as I encourage students to do in my volunteer work. I'd expect them to stand up for what they believe in, and if they find an injustice, they should do what they can to stop it. That said, if they break the law in doing so, they must also know that there are consequences for that and accept them.
But what you are proposing is not questioning, it's self-serving rationalization. I'm not proposing that anyone roll over and agree with me, because I don't need anyone to agree with me. The law isn't something to agree with or disagree with, there's no room for debate. I expect people to question the law and hold their government accountable, and to act for change when appropriate. That is separate from deciding that the law isn't a good one and just not following it, based on your judgment. It doesn't free you from the consequences. If someone decides that the law that says you stop when the light is red is a bad law and just keeps going, what they just did is wrong, whether or not they get caught or prosecuted. If you do get pulled over, your personal idea that the law is stupid is not going to get you off the hook and you are very much responsible for paying the fines/doing the time.
AceWilfong
Apr 24, 03:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
Excellent! And it would not surprise me to learn that religion was invented by Kings, not Gods.
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
Excellent! And it would not surprise me to learn that religion was invented by Kings, not Gods.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:10 PM
Matthew 5:18-19
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
ReyesJonathan
Feb 28, 09:21 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a cupcake is going to take down iPhone?
:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D
sblasl
Nov 2, 08:25 PM
Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:o