appleguy123
Mar 24, 06:56 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
cgc
Jul 11, 10:39 PM
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:55 PM
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
Trash Can
Jun 19, 02:10 PM
I got the iPhone 3G two years ago after being with Verizon for seven. Love the phone - hate the network! I travel extensively. Some places my 3G is reliable, others not so much.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
skunk
Mar 26, 10:04 AM
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
Married before receiving Holy Orders
It was within canon law, and still is, for priests to have once been married before receiving Holy Orders. In the Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, it is within canon law to be a priest and married (but one may not marry after ordination).
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.[2][3] Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[4]
Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. Wrote a decree in 385, stating that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great.
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[5]
Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was selected to be pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. His daughter was carried off, raped, and murdered by former antipope Anastasius's brother, Eleutherius. Her mother was also killed by Eleutherius.
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests.[7]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.[8]
Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last pope to have been married.[9]
Sexually active before receiving Holy Orders
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.[10]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.[11] According to the 1911 Encyclop�dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of his children".[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.[15][16]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.[17]
Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders
Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a "sodomite covered with shameful ulcers."[19]
Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[22][23]
Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.[24]
Sexually active during their pontificate
Along with other complaints, the activities of the popes between 1458 to 1565 helped encourage the Protestant Reformation.
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[27]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis:[28] "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[29] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[30] He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."[38] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest", accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Pope Gregory VI.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)
Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate
Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.[42]
Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",[43] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[44] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.
Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[45]
Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[46] According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
Married before receiving Holy Orders
It was within canon law, and still is, for priests to have once been married before receiving Holy Orders. In the Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, it is within canon law to be a priest and married (but one may not marry after ordination).
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.[2][3] Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[4]
Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. Wrote a decree in 385, stating that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great.
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[5]
Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was selected to be pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. His daughter was carried off, raped, and murdered by former antipope Anastasius's brother, Eleutherius. Her mother was also killed by Eleutherius.
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests.[7]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.[8]
Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last pope to have been married.[9]
Sexually active before receiving Holy Orders
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.[10]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.[11] According to the 1911 Encyclop�dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of his children".[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.[15][16]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.[17]
Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders
Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a "sodomite covered with shameful ulcers."[19]
Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[22][23]
Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.[24]
Sexually active during their pontificate
Along with other complaints, the activities of the popes between 1458 to 1565 helped encourage the Protestant Reformation.
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[27]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis:[28] "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[29] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[30] He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."[38] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest", accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Pope Gregory VI.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)
Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate
Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.[42]
Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",[43] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[44] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.
Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[45]
Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[46] According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 12:46 AM
Matthew can go F himself.
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
Huntn
Apr 25, 08:41 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
hexonxonx
Jun 13, 06:25 PM
me too. It's been a lot worse recently. I always said AT&T was fine, but I'm being made to look like a liar. Why are we going in the wrong direction here?
It's gotten allot better for us since September when they announced 850MHz or whatever that is. I think I have only had one dropped call in all these months. Our download speed have also increased to just under 3Mbps. :)
It's gotten allot better for us since September when they announced 850MHz or whatever that is. I think I have only had one dropped call in all these months. Our download speed have also increased to just under 3Mbps. :)
leftPCbehind209
Apr 12, 10:37 PM
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
Thanks, I figured as much too. Big improvement from before.
Also, way too many haters here on iMovie. For weddings, it has been so much easier to skim my clips using iMovie than FC. I don't need a whole lot to put a wedding together...iMovie has been perfect...it just lacked majorly in color correction.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
Thanks, I figured as much too. Big improvement from before.
Also, way too many haters here on iMovie. For weddings, it has been so much easier to skim my clips using iMovie than FC. I don't need a whole lot to put a wedding together...iMovie has been perfect...it just lacked majorly in color correction.
thatisme
Apr 28, 08:20 AM
I don't see a problem with the comparison numbers... it includes "Pads", not just iPads.
Acer, I believe has a tablet device. Dell has the streak. HP held back on their tablet device....
So, it is an apples to apples comparison, since tablets were included in the sales numbers for everyone in the survey.
Acer, I believe has a tablet device. Dell has the streak. HP held back on their tablet device....
So, it is an apples to apples comparison, since tablets were included in the sales numbers for everyone in the survey.
Habakuk
Apr 15, 09:57 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too…
Before I'd consider suicide on being fat I would first try to loose some weight maybe. I lost 30 kilograms (keeping that weight for some years now) and I am very happy with that. My personal receipt was to distract from eating with wonderful electronic gadgets. I don't need to medicate my diabetes II any more. Just try that. It's possible.
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too…
Before I'd consider suicide on being fat I would first try to loose some weight maybe. I lost 30 kilograms (keeping that weight for some years now) and I am very happy with that. My personal receipt was to distract from eating with wonderful electronic gadgets. I don't need to medicate my diabetes II any more. Just try that. It's possible.
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
stompy
Apr 14, 12:53 PM
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
.
.
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
I've read almost the entire thread, and had a couple thoughts. Not sure the OP is still here, especially having read his reactions, but just in case.
Based on what I know about the OP (i.e. always used windows, just curious about Macs), I'm not really sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
(side note: Now, don't everyone freak out, but here comes an analogy. I'm going to compare a non-computer object to Windows/Mac. I know there will be differences, you know there will be differences. Forget them.)
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
formal hairstyles for short
formal hairstyles for short
short formal hairstyles 2011.
Many of these hairstyles are
2011 formal short hair styles
formal hairstyles for short
formal hairstyles for short
.
.
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
I've read almost the entire thread, and had a couple thoughts. Not sure the OP is still here, especially having read his reactions, but just in case.
Based on what I know about the OP (i.e. always used windows, just curious about Macs), I'm not really sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
(side note: Now, don't everyone freak out, but here comes an analogy. I'm going to compare a non-computer object to Windows/Mac. I know there will be differences, you know there will be differences. Forget them.)
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
God of Biscuits
Mar 23, 05:21 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:23 AM
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:50 PM
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
rxse7en
Oct 12, 07:12 AM
Thanks for the update. Still as cheap as the refurbs. I think that's cheap enough for me.
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
You're welcome.
You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.
B
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
You're welcome.
You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.
B
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:44 PM
If honour killings are cultural why do they seem sanctioned in muslim majority countries?
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:42 AM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe.
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:47 PM
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:44 PM
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
jlasoon
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
Your overall point being because Apple poses and threat to Nintendo, which Nintendo recognises, Nintendo are doomed to go out of business?
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
risc
Sep 12, 03:44 PM
An interesting device it sounds like the El Gato EyeHome. As long as it can play all normal video/audio formats (whatever you have QuickTime components for) and it has support for El Gato EyeTV I'll happily replace my XP MCE box with one.
emil.lofman
Aug 29, 12:53 PM
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
No comments:
Post a Comment