andrewsd
Mar 31, 02:27 PM
Say What I thought a closed system was bad..hahahhaahahahah
MacSA
Sep 19, 03:53 AM
PowerBook G5 by the holidays.
Oh My God lol
........anyway, maybe the MacBook will stick with core duo, if they do, they could (and should) cut the price since those core duo chips are supposed to drop in price soon. And if they still insist on shipping a �750 laptop with a combodrive worth 50p i'll scream.
Oh My God lol
........anyway, maybe the MacBook will stick with core duo, if they do, they could (and should) cut the price since those core duo chips are supposed to drop in price soon. And if they still insist on shipping a �750 laptop with a combodrive worth 50p i'll scream.
DeathChill
Aug 7, 10:18 PM
Running the preview now... some nice developer level stuff that I cannot ebelish on however beyond what was talked about in the keynote.
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
So it's fair to say that developers have received their copy of Leopard?
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
So it's fair to say that developers have received their copy of Leopard?
superfula
Apr 6, 10:53 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 10, 07:41 PM
There is a part of me that hopes Apple screws up and dumbs down FCS. This is the only remaining software that keeps me buying expensive Macs. If they turn FCS into a glorified iApp, then I'm dumping my Mac's and moving on to a build your own PC where I can run Linux and all of the industry standard professional apps.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
So munch elitism there it's dripping off my screen. Your post is funny b/c when FCP 1.0 was announced the many of "pro" editors of the time gasped b/c it, well, "dumbed down" editing, similar to how Pagemaker 1.0 dumbed down publishing.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
So munch elitism there it's dripping off my screen. Your post is funny b/c when FCP 1.0 was announced the many of "pro" editors of the time gasped b/c it, well, "dumbed down" editing, similar to how Pagemaker 1.0 dumbed down publishing.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
Sydde
Mar 20, 06:56 PM
But they have worked so hard, all these decades, to diminish the "one man, one vote" to something much less than that.
Well, you see, it is not about the one-man-one-vote thing. That works just fine. You just have to make sure you keep the wrong men from voting.
Well, you see, it is not about the one-man-one-vote thing. That works just fine. You just have to make sure you keep the wrong men from voting.
dwero
Jun 9, 03:29 AM
When called #639*, I got the news that 16GB for $199 and 32GB for $299.
That's suck
That's suck
relimw
Aug 6, 11:08 AM
My predictions:
MacPro: quad woodcrest @ 3GHz, 1GB ram standard, two high speed video card slots, ATI x1900, or NVIDIA 7950GX2, for first time, ATI FireGL boards available as BTO.
XServe: dual woodcrest, larger hard drives
Airport: "pre-n" announced, ships on new MacPros, available in 6 weeks for standalone devices, upgradable when standard is formalized
Leopard: preview, all of OS now 64bit able, still runs on 32bit machines. Takes full advantage of GPU. The usual slew of apps updated.
XCode: updated to 3.0, API for project files made available, various "features" (ie bugs) fixed
Not happening:
iPods, iPhone
New displays and updated "pro" apps will happen at NAB in April. However Steve may announce that all Pro apps are now universal apps. Also, he will hold over the quad G5 in the line-up until Adode has all of their apps universal.
MacPro: quad woodcrest @ 3GHz, 1GB ram standard, two high speed video card slots, ATI x1900, or NVIDIA 7950GX2, for first time, ATI FireGL boards available as BTO.
XServe: dual woodcrest, larger hard drives
Airport: "pre-n" announced, ships on new MacPros, available in 6 weeks for standalone devices, upgradable when standard is formalized
Leopard: preview, all of OS now 64bit able, still runs on 32bit machines. Takes full advantage of GPU. The usual slew of apps updated.
XCode: updated to 3.0, API for project files made available, various "features" (ie bugs) fixed
Not happening:
iPods, iPhone
New displays and updated "pro" apps will happen at NAB in April. However Steve may announce that all Pro apps are now universal apps. Also, he will hold over the quad G5 in the line-up until Adode has all of their apps universal.
slackpacker
Apr 10, 06:43 AM
Finally, while I don't know whether software stocks are different from hardware stocks, I just checked Apple's website, and FCS, FCE, and FCServer are readily available for shipping within 24 hours.
I'm sure they will still be shipping since they support the current Final Cut Studio 3 reeaallllyyy well. Lets face it the thing thats coming out will not support the old Plug-ins or workflows and will not be the replacement for FCP that everyone was expecting.
I'm sure they will still be shipping since they support the current Final Cut Studio 3 reeaallllyyy well. Lets face it the thing thats coming out will not support the old Plug-ins or workflows and will not be the replacement for FCP that everyone was expecting.
bretm
Apr 25, 03:51 PM
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
Except it doesn't use GPS data. It uses cell towers and wifi.
Except it doesn't use GPS data. It uses cell towers and wifi.
thatisme
Apr 27, 08:36 AM
Maybe this will stop the large daily 1am data chunks being sent on 3G??? My most active time on 3G data always happens when I am asleep....:eek:
NJRonbo
Jun 12, 08:34 AM
Not bad at all.
michaelflynn
Apr 6, 02:53 PM
Constant crashes on a Windows machine, eh? I don't see that from feedback I've been hearing. I'm wondering about the specs of those Windows machines you are speaking of (unsupported video card, or not enough RAM perhaps?). Drop by our forum with your issues. Let's see if we can help you troubleshoot your issues: http://forums.adobe.com/community/premiere/premierepro_current
Yes, many of the crashes I've experienced have to do with Matrox cards, but not all of them. My boss is on the Abode and Matrox beta teams, so I will let him deal with the feedback. I think the machines are primarily i7's with 8+GB RAM on Windows 7 64-bit...I don't know for sure though, I'm not well versed in Windows based machines.
Yes, many of the crashes I've experienced have to do with Matrox cards, but not all of them. My boss is on the Abode and Matrox beta teams, so I will let him deal with the feedback. I think the machines are primarily i7's with 8+GB RAM on Windows 7 64-bit...I don't know for sure though, I'm not well versed in Windows based machines.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 09:10 PM
Motorola wasn't the first company to create an iProduct and using an Apple may have infringed on The Beatles' production company's logo (not The Beatles' logo) but it was not a US company. Do you really think that Jobs got the idea for using the Apple name from The Beatles?
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
clockworksaulo
Jun 9, 02:26 PM
RadioShack store manager here and i have some
These prices are taken off instantly from what you purchase(no mail in rebates) or applied to a gift card instantly. Your choice.
3Gs 32Gb - $271
3Gs 16Gb - $210
3G 16Gb - $149
3G 8Gb - $118
The older models are on the website as well, look for yourself...
http://radioshack.cexchange.com/online/Home/ManufacturerSelected.rails?enc=sU4reD6QJWP5MQn1SwFn38CtURe9PcXAJv9fUpYciv8=
That means if you are eligible for the $199 price and trade in your 16gb 3Gs, we will instantly (no mail in rebates) take $210 off the $199 for the iPhone 4 and you will have a $10 balance either applied on a gift card, to the taxes, or towards an accessory, whatever you prefer.
Intrigued yet? Now follow me here...
Not sure if this will be the same policy on the iPhone 4, but the way its set up right now: The day you do an upgrade to any phone, you are immediately eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade". That means ATT tacks on a $200 early upgrade fee.
If you are currently not eligible for an upgrade, but eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade" (You will be, you always are, again even if you did an upgrade 5 minutes ago.) Now, that $199 iPhone 4 becomes $399. You can trade in your current model towards that $399 price.
Trade in a 16Gb 3Gs and the $399 Early upgrade on the iPhone 4 is now $189. If you need to, take a sec and read this again so you fully understand.
This is 100% accurate except there has been no announcement made for the "Early iPhone Upgrade" continuing on the iPhone 4. I very strongly believe it will. Also, the trade in values may drop a tad when the iPhone 4 launches, but look at the current prices we give on 3G's and original iPhones, it is still very good. You are not gonna get "eBay money" but you get a respectable amount and it is all taken care of instantly in the store. SPREAD THE WORD!!
you there... :)
BEST BUY HAS BETTER TRADE IN PRICE
32gb 3GS = $315.00 compared to radioshacks $279
Personally i would try ebay, theyre going for about 400-500, thast 100-200 dollars more. Spoke to radioshack managers and they charge the upgrade fee, ATT and Apple and best buy are waiving upgrade fee.
Early Upgrade fee also available at all retail locations, Wal-mart, apple, att, radioshack, best buy
These prices are taken off instantly from what you purchase(no mail in rebates) or applied to a gift card instantly. Your choice.
3Gs 32Gb - $271
3Gs 16Gb - $210
3G 16Gb - $149
3G 8Gb - $118
The older models are on the website as well, look for yourself...
http://radioshack.cexchange.com/online/Home/ManufacturerSelected.rails?enc=sU4reD6QJWP5MQn1SwFn38CtURe9PcXAJv9fUpYciv8=
That means if you are eligible for the $199 price and trade in your 16gb 3Gs, we will instantly (no mail in rebates) take $210 off the $199 for the iPhone 4 and you will have a $10 balance either applied on a gift card, to the taxes, or towards an accessory, whatever you prefer.
Intrigued yet? Now follow me here...
Not sure if this will be the same policy on the iPhone 4, but the way its set up right now: The day you do an upgrade to any phone, you are immediately eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade". That means ATT tacks on a $200 early upgrade fee.
If you are currently not eligible for an upgrade, but eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade" (You will be, you always are, again even if you did an upgrade 5 minutes ago.) Now, that $199 iPhone 4 becomes $399. You can trade in your current model towards that $399 price.
Trade in a 16Gb 3Gs and the $399 Early upgrade on the iPhone 4 is now $189. If you need to, take a sec and read this again so you fully understand.
This is 100% accurate except there has been no announcement made for the "Early iPhone Upgrade" continuing on the iPhone 4. I very strongly believe it will. Also, the trade in values may drop a tad when the iPhone 4 launches, but look at the current prices we give on 3G's and original iPhones, it is still very good. You are not gonna get "eBay money" but you get a respectable amount and it is all taken care of instantly in the store. SPREAD THE WORD!!
you there... :)
BEST BUY HAS BETTER TRADE IN PRICE
32gb 3GS = $315.00 compared to radioshacks $279
Personally i would try ebay, theyre going for about 400-500, thast 100-200 dollars more. Spoke to radioshack managers and they charge the upgrade fee, ATT and Apple and best buy are waiving upgrade fee.
Early Upgrade fee also available at all retail locations, Wal-mart, apple, att, radioshack, best buy
infowarfare
Apr 5, 05:22 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Really? And yet, it seems to be good enough for the top directors in the industry.... some of the recent Academy nominated films were all edited on Final Cut, including the Cohen Brothers' "True Grit", and "Winter's Bone". Also, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola used FCP on their last films... these are all people that have access and can afford cutting their films on AVID and yet, they recently choose Final Cut Pro... so why do people even question it? :rolleyes:
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Really? And yet, it seems to be good enough for the top directors in the industry.... some of the recent Academy nominated films were all edited on Final Cut, including the Cohen Brothers' "True Grit", and "Winter's Bone". Also, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola used FCP on their last films... these are all people that have access and can afford cutting their films on AVID and yet, they recently choose Final Cut Pro... so why do people even question it? :rolleyes:
Popeye206
Apr 11, 12:48 PM
Enough with all the damn secrets. What other company keeps you in the dark about their products?! I've noticed a lot of people get tired of the same old waiting game with the iPhone and go ahead and get something else. Sometimes they like it and stick to the brand instead of Apple. This secrecy strategy was good at first but now it's starting to work against Apple.
I've noticed that too with their products all being top sellers! :rolleyes:
Personally, I like that they keep things under wraps. Why do I care until something is released anyway. Others do it as a sign of desperation to try and hold off people from buying something else. Obviously, this strategy really worked well for Moto and the Xoom.... lots of pre-ship hype and big flop afterwards.
I've noticed that too with their products all being top sellers! :rolleyes:
Personally, I like that they keep things under wraps. Why do I care until something is released anyway. Others do it as a sign of desperation to try and hold off people from buying something else. Obviously, this strategy really worked well for Moto and the Xoom.... lots of pre-ship hype and big flop afterwards.
rdowns
May 3, 09:21 AM
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a 'birther', I believe O'bama is the rightful president of the US. That said, this video, if it's true (I don't have Adobe Illustrator to verify) is pretty embarassing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Come on, you can do better than this. :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Come on, you can do better than this. :rolleyes:
vivithemage
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
They have some good wordsmiths :D
jmsait19
Sep 19, 02:46 AM
(2) Those of us that buy Macbook Pros are throwing down $2500+ for top-of-the-line laptops. Sub-$1000 laptops have had a better processor than Apple's flagship laptops for nearly a month now. If you can still defend Apple after this, do a reality check on the fanboyism.
You should thouroughly read a post before you quote and attempt to disprove it, or in this case, call the poster a name like fanboy...
The poster before you mentioned how these "sub-$1000" laptops are JUST starting to ship THIS WEEK, not a month ago as you claim. If Apple were to release new MBP on Monday and announce them as "shipping today," then Apple would only mere days behind, not a month.
Sincerely,
Fanboy
P.S. If you skipped to the end of this post again and are about to reply angrily, please go back and read the post as you will better understand what I am trying to say...
You should thouroughly read a post before you quote and attempt to disprove it, or in this case, call the poster a name like fanboy...
The poster before you mentioned how these "sub-$1000" laptops are JUST starting to ship THIS WEEK, not a month ago as you claim. If Apple were to release new MBP on Monday and announce them as "shipping today," then Apple would only mere days behind, not a month.
Sincerely,
Fanboy
P.S. If you skipped to the end of this post again and are about to reply angrily, please go back and read the post as you will better understand what I am trying to say...
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
thatisme
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
No it's not.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
marksman
Mar 23, 03:33 AM
Is MacRumors branching out to coverage of all tablets and media players now? I can't speak for everyone who visits the site but I come here to read about Apple products, not the competition's knock-offs.
To be fair, every smartphone on the market is an iPhone clone and every tablet an iPad clone, so it is all related to Apple in that way.
To be fair, every smartphone on the market is an iPhone clone and every tablet an iPad clone, so it is all related to Apple in that way.
8CoreWhore
Apr 25, 04:09 PM
GOOD!!
If Apple is not doing it, then they'll have to explain what is going on.
How rude and arrogant for them to not come clean and just address the questions head-on.
They owe us an explanation. We have a right to know what the device do and do not do.
If Apple is not doing it, then they'll have to explain what is going on.
How rude and arrogant for them to not come clean and just address the questions head-on.
They owe us an explanation. We have a right to know what the device do and do not do.