skunk
Mar 22, 08:27 AM
Sometimes silence speaks more than words. Your avoidance of the central issue, and irrelevant or at least less relevant focus on the size, and militarism of coalition countries indicates a lack of understanding or a willful avoidance of the issue I brought up... the 'anti-change' Obama really stands for and the hypocrisy of those on the left and the American media in general when it comes to wartime actions of Dem and Repub presidentsI could not be less interested in taking part in one your tedious party political rants. I was simply suggesting a blindingly obvious reason for the difference between the size of the bought coalition of the craven in 2003 and the present effort. You brought that up, nobody else.
ImAlwaysRight
Aug 17, 02:30 PM
Show.. me.. the.. games...
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
And for what purpose? Would any of you drop the $3500 needed to upgrade to the latest Mac Pro? Or is it just the drool factor, like when you look through Car and Driver and drool over an $80K sports car?
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
And for what purpose? Would any of you drop the $3500 needed to upgrade to the latest Mac Pro? Or is it just the drool factor, like when you look through Car and Driver and drool over an $80K sports car?
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:41 PM
Ridiculous. Mac OS X and iOS can never merge because their UI paradigms are completely different. Why don't people understand this?
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
myemosoul
Jun 12, 10:32 PM
I sold my 16GB 3GS to my local Radio Shack on 6/9 for 184.13 and I'm currently using my old Motorola Razr V3, I'm preordering on the 15th so i certainly hope that i will be holding an iPhone 4 on the 24th. Since i sold my phone I've gotten two phone calls from the store manager, the first one was to ask if I was ok with him putiing my name and phone number on a list of people planning to pre-order and the second call was to ask for my zip code and he told me that he's almost positive i will be getting one on release day which was reassuring. I'm pretty nervous because pretty much all my experiences with Radio Shack have been sketchy over the years, sometime it's really annoying like when i went in one to buy something stupid like CDR's and the associate said i had to be in their system in order to make the sale which required me giving him my name, number and address which i thought was ridiculous.
So far everything is going well this time, when the 3GS came out ATT wouldn't bump up my upgrade date because my bill was under 100 dollars a month, this time they bumped everyone's upgrade date by 6 months! So instead of the 400 bucks i had to pay for my 3GS i will only pay 200 and with the 185 Radio Shack paid for my 3GS it will only be 15 dollars!
Is it true that i'm going to have to pay the $18 dollar upgrade fee at Radio Shack? Apple never charged me that. Or does it get charged to you cell phone bill?
So if Im getting this right....I bring my 3GS to Radio Shack on the 15th to preorder the iphone 4 and then I have to turn in my old phone in order to get the buy back gift card? But then I would be without a phone for over a week? My local Radio Shack said I could get $256 for my 3gs. But if I read right that price could go down the closer it gets to the ip4 launch?
Thanks
So far everything is going well this time, when the 3GS came out ATT wouldn't bump up my upgrade date because my bill was under 100 dollars a month, this time they bumped everyone's upgrade date by 6 months! So instead of the 400 bucks i had to pay for my 3GS i will only pay 200 and with the 185 Radio Shack paid for my 3GS it will only be 15 dollars!
Is it true that i'm going to have to pay the $18 dollar upgrade fee at Radio Shack? Apple never charged me that. Or does it get charged to you cell phone bill?
So if Im getting this right....I bring my 3GS to Radio Shack on the 15th to preorder the iphone 4 and then I have to turn in my old phone in order to get the buy back gift card? But then I would be without a phone for over a week? My local Radio Shack said I could get $256 for my 3gs. But if I read right that price could go down the closer it gets to the ip4 launch?
Thanks
BaldiMac
Mar 22, 03:38 PM
The iPad two does have some shortcomings, few of which are worth going to to here. However, the OS of these devices IS crucial and we are beginning to see iOS creaking slightly. In terms of looks and notifications, for me, Apple is lagging. I like how the Playbook looks and potentially, should operate. Will I make a snap judgement? No. I'll try the damn thing first before making a judgement.
Why are you comparing the Playbook that is coming out this summer to iOS 4? Chances are it will be competing with iOS 5. If you want to be fair and all.
Why are you comparing the Playbook that is coming out this summer to iOS 4? Chances are it will be competing with iOS 5. If you want to be fair and all.
rye9
Aug 7, 03:18 PM
Personally.. I wasnt too thrilled with the features shown.. some i liked tho.. but some i didnt care for.. time machine is amazing however.. and spaces is nice too. All in all i cant wait to get my hands on it next year.
sunfast
Aug 17, 09:07 AM
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are �570. Apple are charging �530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around �300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
CdnBook
Apr 5, 10:27 PM
Super stoked! It's finally coming!!
shawnce
Aug 6, 10:15 PM
Woot on site ... look at all the geeks :)
First shirt says "Veni. Vidi. Codi." on the front and "WWDC06" on the back.
...and yes those banners making fun of Vista are real.
First shirt says "Veni. Vidi. Codi." on the front and "WWDC06" on the back.
...and yes those banners making fun of Vista are real.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:22 PM
Who wants to go through the trouble of doing a software change to unlock their phone.
It is a code you are given to unlock the cell. NOT a software change, unless the carrier changes the entire phone software.
It is a code you are given to unlock the cell. NOT a software change, unless the carrier changes the entire phone software.
Eidorian
Jul 15, 05:18 AM
We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.
milo
Jul 27, 03:39 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
cult hero
Mar 26, 07:02 PM
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
There's no reason you can't do the exact same thing on a Mac. There are no shortage of virtual machine apps and no room to complain either seeing as VirtualBox is free (and Parallels is almost always available through some cheap MacUpdate bundle). Virtualize.
Rosetta needs to go away. Backward compatibility very often holds back forward progress (just look at how badly web technologies have been stifled by IE 6 even today). Widespread use of virtualization is making it more convenient to move forward and the average computer user simply doesn't need/use software that's a decade old.
There's no reason you can't do the exact same thing on a Mac. There are no shortage of virtual machine apps and no room to complain either seeing as VirtualBox is free (and Parallels is almost always available through some cheap MacUpdate bundle). Virtualize.
Rosetta needs to go away. Backward compatibility very often holds back forward progress (just look at how badly web technologies have been stifled by IE 6 even today). Widespread use of virtualization is making it more convenient to move forward and the average computer user simply doesn't need/use software that's a decade old.
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 06:53 PM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
ugp
Jun 11, 09:23 AM
I'm on a conf call and just got word about the early openings. As soon as i get to work in a minute ill post all the info i have. :)
Please let me know ASAP! :D
Please let me know ASAP! :D
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 11:47 AM
People will loose interest in Apple iPhones with so many other new releases coming out on a regular basis.
Android phones could have octo-core processors and laser hologram projection and the iPhone would still be a better overall user experience (with a vastly-better app catalog).
I'd rather see Apple focus on the software at this point. How about fixing the craptastic notification system already???
Android phones could have octo-core processors and laser hologram projection and the iPhone would still be a better overall user experience (with a vastly-better app catalog).
I'd rather see Apple focus on the software at this point. How about fixing the craptastic notification system already???
jettredmont
Apr 10, 05:26 PM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
Umm, it's a Final Cut Users' Group, not an Avid user's group. I think they are a little more interested in the next big step in Fincal Cut Pro, moreso than what Avid and Adobe are doing. Apple demanded all stage time, because they have a lot to cover, and want the rest of the meet available to talk about what they demo. Seems completely kosher to me.
Now, if this was Apple going to something like NAB and telling them to boot out all their non-Apple demos, that would be different. But while this is at NAB, it is quite specifically the group of self-identified folks who care more about FCP than anything else. So no big deal.
Umm, it's a Final Cut Users' Group, not an Avid user's group. I think they are a little more interested in the next big step in Fincal Cut Pro, moreso than what Avid and Adobe are doing. Apple demanded all stage time, because they have a lot to cover, and want the rest of the meet available to talk about what they demo. Seems completely kosher to me.
Now, if this was Apple going to something like NAB and telling them to boot out all their non-Apple demos, that would be different. But while this is at NAB, it is quite specifically the group of self-identified folks who care more about FCP than anything else. So no big deal.
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:30 PM
No software such as Toast 7.1, Handbrake UB. More to the point is not how many cores an application can use but rather how many things can you get done at once. :rolleyes:I think in the next few months the full FCS and Logic will get an update to address this.
One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).
One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).
edk99
Apr 11, 11:33 AM
If it is going to be a 4g/LTE iPhone then this works for me. I have no complaints with my iPhone 4 so waiting another 4-6 months is fine with me.
Machead III
Sep 19, 03:50 AM
It would be fantastic for the MacBook to have the Core 2 Duo, (MacBookPro is a given), the fact is, Apple needs to do this update to stay in the same ballpark as the pc notebook makers.
Now if they could just give the MacBook a real graphics card, I'd be a taker.
Randy at MacSeven.com (http://www.MacSeven.com)
The fact that we all want dedicated graphics and it's a no-brainer to add it, means that it won't happen.
Now if they could just give the MacBook a real graphics card, I'd be a taker.
Randy at MacSeven.com (http://www.MacSeven.com)
The fact that we all want dedicated graphics and it's a no-brainer to add it, means that it won't happen.
patseguin
Aug 7, 08:21 AM
Will Leopard be available for download by ADC members as soon as it is given out at WWDC?
Chundles
Aug 27, 11:42 PM
I don't think we're going to see Merom in the MacBook Pros tomorrow. Of course, I'm HOPEING. If they were annouced tomorrow, it would make not only my day, but my month! I've been waiting since June and was expecing it at WWDC. So I'm keeping my fingers crosses 100%. If the're annouced tomorrow, I'm going to order it withen the first 5 minuts of me finding out.
Hopefully this will be my order.
15" MacBook Pro
2.33GHz
2GB Ram
256MB VRAM
Superdrive
+BT Mighty Mouse (x2)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
Why are you buying the DLink Bluetooth thingy?
Hopefully this will be my order.
15" MacBook Pro
2.33GHz
2GB Ram
256MB VRAM
Superdrive
+BT Mighty Mouse (x2)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
Why are you buying the DLink Bluetooth thingy?
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
backdraft
Aug 26, 02:49 PM
Call it what you want but these new MacBooks are crap. Yea there is people who are enjoying theirs without a hitch but look at all the reports of problems. Not once on this forum have we had a flood of problems with a single unit. Apple dropped the ball on this one. Poorly made unit
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
