iliketyla
Apr 20, 06:27 PM
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
jholzner
Sep 20, 09:58 AM
Woohoo a hard drive! :D
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
Not sure how it would have DVR capabilities since there is no coax input but who knows. If it could do DVR I'd buy in a second and replace my Tivo. However, it seems Apple wants to sell you shows not let you record them for free so I don't see them adding it. Here's hoping!
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
Not sure how it would have DVR capabilities since there is no coax input but who knows. If it could do DVR I'd buy in a second and replace my Tivo. However, it seems Apple wants to sell you shows not let you record them for free so I don't see them adding it. Here's hoping!
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 05:09 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:53 PM
Is this a bigger issue in the US, and do atheists abroad feel pressure to at least consider the idea of a God?
In some areas of the US people look down on if you admit that you don't believe in God. People can be very vicious about it and at the work place it's best not to voice your opinion or the Christians will gang up against you. I've seen this happen several times.
In some areas of the US people look down on if you admit that you don't believe in God. People can be very vicious about it and at the work place it's best not to voice your opinion or the Christians will gang up against you. I've seen this happen several times.
Sayer
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
Maybe the parents and teachers could be more effective then ephemeral videos by "concerned celebrities" and tech ppl most didn't know even existed?
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
bruinsrme
Apr 19, 09:27 PM
There is a few things
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
remove programs
My network places
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
Still learning OSx.
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
remove programs
My network places
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
Still learning OSx.
mdntcallr
Aug 29, 02:38 PM
i am sure apple will get better at recycling.
they are making improvements already. shouldnt be an issue.
they are making improvements already. shouldnt be an issue.
Stella
Aug 29, 10:54 PM
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
Sure, go and destroy this planet - you know, the thing that sustains life for you.
Hell, some people take things too far.... the entity that supports life... yea.....
Sure, go and destroy this planet - you know, the thing that sustains life for you.
Hell, some people take things too far.... the entity that supports life... yea.....
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 02:40 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
In a nutshell (help! I'm in a nutshell!) DRM (Digital Rights Management) is that little wrapper around the downloaded AAC files that makes it so you can only play the song on up to five computers/devices.
In a nutshell (help! I'm in a nutshell!) DRM (Digital Rights Management) is that little wrapper around the downloaded AAC files that makes it so you can only play the song on up to five computers/devices.
Object-X
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
I really don't understand all the comments about why doesn't it have a DVD player, or it doesn't have Tivo capabilities, ect. I really think you all are missing the point: it is designed to eventually replace all those technologies. OK, it doesnt' do it yet, but Jobs said something very important at the end of the keynote, and that was "you can see the direction we are heading".
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
blackpond
May 2, 09:29 AM
People use Safari? ... :confused:
stcanard
Mar 18, 01:04 PM
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 05:38 PM
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 04:43 PM
SNIP (Just to save space)
I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.
To quote one of your articles: It was 15MWe, 46 MWt, and was used to develop and test a wide variety of fuels and machinery over its lifetime. Its Helium outlet temperature was 950�C, but fuel temperature instabilities occurred during operation with locally far to high temperatures. As a consequence the whole reactor vessel became heavily contaminated by Cs-137 and Sr-90 [1]. Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.
To quote one of your articles: It was 15MWe, 46 MWt, and was used to develop and test a wide variety of fuels and machinery over its lifetime. Its Helium outlet temperature was 950�C, but fuel temperature instabilities occurred during operation with locally far to high temperatures. As a consequence the whole reactor vessel became heavily contaminated by Cs-137 and Sr-90 [1]. Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
foodog
Apr 13, 06:12 AM
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I really don't think Apple is doing away with Motion or Color. FCP has had Motion funtionality built in for some time, now it will have Color functionality built in. There is still a need for the stand alone apps for the less simple things.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I really don't think Apple is doing away with Motion or Color. FCP has had Motion funtionality built in for some time, now it will have Color functionality built in. There is still a need for the stand alone apps for the less simple things.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:01 PM
I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:32 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
More photos : Zac Efron
zac efron 2011 calendar
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
OneMike
May 2, 09:09 AM
significant, but you have to install
gravytrain84
Mar 18, 01:31 AM
I knew this was coming sooner or later....:mad:
nick9191
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
CaoCao
Mar 26, 06:59 PM
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
benixau
Oct 10, 12:07 PM
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
Small White Car
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
:rolleyes:
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
