ccrandall77
Aug 11, 01:47 PM
Well, to be fair, your radio ROM/software can have some effect on your reception, and different companies release different radio software at different times, and that can have some effect.
My 8125 has a t-mobile radio ROM, but I run it on cingular. There are a few wrinkles in that, but you are generally correct.
You are correct. With my testing, I used an unlocked Nokia 6620 (originally from Cingular) with both T-Mo and Cingular SIMs. Also did the same with a SE T610 (unlocked, but originally T-Mo). In both cases, I found Cingular's service (NOT CUSTOMER SERVICE!!!) much better.
My 8125 has a t-mobile radio ROM, but I run it on cingular. There are a few wrinkles in that, but you are generally correct.
You are correct. With my testing, I used an unlocked Nokia 6620 (originally from Cingular) with both T-Mo and Cingular SIMs. Also did the same with a SE T610 (unlocked, but originally T-Mo). In both cases, I found Cingular's service (NOT CUSTOMER SERVICE!!!) much better.
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:28 AM
http://dissociatedpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/facebook-meh-button-500.png
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
A clear and balanced argument ladies and gentlemen.
So cogently valid as to supersede the need for evidence.
Edit: Wait .. i just got the sarcasm .. damn!
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
A clear and balanced argument ladies and gentlemen.
So cogently valid as to supersede the need for evidence.
Edit: Wait .. i just got the sarcasm .. damn!
Erasmus
Aug 26, 07:04 PM
I cannot believe that the iMac will continue to have a slower processor than the Macbook Pro. For years, the iMac has been about twice as fast as the leading Powerbook. I see no reason why Apple will not choose to put a "real man's" processor in what I would think is there most popular product (dismissing iPod). iMac deserves to retake the crown from Macbok Pro for speed in all areas, with CHEAPER components, ie. Conroe over Merom. And a decent GPU of course. In both.
I think it would be possible that Apple will rrefresh both Macbook Pro and iMac very soon, why not Tuesday? It would be nice to keep these two very comparable machines (at least at the moment) on par with each other.
After all, there is no shortage on Conroe, is there, and why else would they wait to release new iMacs? (unless iMacs get Merom too, in which case I'll be taking a quick trip to America, to find out just how much kidneys can be sold for on the black market, and how long a certain old man can survive without his.)
Conroe iMacs AND Merom MBP's on TUESDAY!
I think it would be possible that Apple will rrefresh both Macbook Pro and iMac very soon, why not Tuesday? It would be nice to keep these two very comparable machines (at least at the moment) on par with each other.
After all, there is no shortage on Conroe, is there, and why else would they wait to release new iMacs? (unless iMacs get Merom too, in which case I'll be taking a quick trip to America, to find out just how much kidneys can be sold for on the black market, and how long a certain old man can survive without his.)
Conroe iMacs AND Merom MBP's on TUESDAY!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
aafuss1
Jul 14, 11:54 PM
Interesting question, but I don't think any of us here will have the answers.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
I agree-eg. to add a Crossfire configuration would mean that Apple would need to have a preference pane to configure that, which they don't-they supply a driver only.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
I agree-eg. to add a Crossfire configuration would mean that Apple would need to have a preference pane to configure that, which they don't-they supply a driver only.
NinjaHERO
Apr 25, 02:43 PM
Yet another reason for us to look at the "Loser Pays" legal system. Maybe it will stop some of this silliness.
skunk
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
I keep seeing these pointless ad hominems popping up in your posts. It really is getting tiresome.Isn't that an ad feminam?
The Beatles
Apr 25, 03:16 PM
Asinine
how did they think the location based features on any app worked? This is just a cashed file for those purposes.
And what about all the location based advertising? So it takes this to make people understand that the world has changed? This is old news and ridiculous that people are now making a scene about it. How about signing electronically at a credit card purchase machine. How about giving someone a check with your account number on the bottom of it. How about electronically giving your personal and sensitive info over the internet.
This is how it is people. You bought in to it a long time ago. Its what it takes to move forward. And the only reason why this is a bad thing is because people fail to police themselves. Including the people that attain this info, and thats why we will eventually have some negative repercussion from this collection of data.
But to pin point apple and create a federal case out of something that the government already new was happening is ridiculous.
how did they think the location based features on any app worked? This is just a cashed file for those purposes.
And what about all the location based advertising? So it takes this to make people understand that the world has changed? This is old news and ridiculous that people are now making a scene about it. How about signing electronically at a credit card purchase machine. How about giving someone a check with your account number on the bottom of it. How about electronically giving your personal and sensitive info over the internet.
This is how it is people. You bought in to it a long time ago. Its what it takes to move forward. And the only reason why this is a bad thing is because people fail to police themselves. Including the people that attain this info, and thats why we will eventually have some negative repercussion from this collection of data.
But to pin point apple and create a federal case out of something that the government already new was happening is ridiculous.
iMikeT
Aug 7, 08:10 PM
I don't believe that we have to wait until Spring 2007.:mad:
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
regandarcy
Apr 6, 10:56 AM
So are the current MacBook airs using a dedicated gpu? Or is it integrated? I'm confused. :-)
Taustin Powers
Aug 18, 05:21 AM
That blue PS3 looks pretty awesome!
Too bad I already have a PS3....AND have no interest in GT5. :rolleyes:
Too bad I already have a PS3....AND have no interest in GT5. :rolleyes:
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 19, 02:24 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz
Why yes we do.
If you can get more speed, and if the competition is doing it, why not? If you're spending a ton of money on a computer, wouldn't you want to most recent one available? Am I being too greedy when I see competitors using a newer, faster chip at the same price as the old chip (easily swappable too) and demand that I want that in my "pro" laptop from Apple?
As for constant revisions, you're probably thinking a bit about resale values. In the long run, constant speed bumps won't affect your resale value at all. (Think about it. You compare old laptop speed to current generation speed. It doesn't matter whatever happened in the middle.)
Why yes we do.
If you can get more speed, and if the competition is doing it, why not? If you're spending a ton of money on a computer, wouldn't you want to most recent one available? Am I being too greedy when I see competitors using a newer, faster chip at the same price as the old chip (easily swappable too) and demand that I want that in my "pro" laptop from Apple?
As for constant revisions, you're probably thinking a bit about resale values. In the long run, constant speed bumps won't affect your resale value at all. (Think about it. You compare old laptop speed to current generation speed. It doesn't matter whatever happened in the middle.)
Erasmus
Aug 27, 01:18 AM
Damn PowerPC fans.
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 08:17 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
ByteCore
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
ByteCore
zedsdead
Apr 12, 05:10 AM
http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3
Avid is holding a great promotion to switch over to Media Composer if you are an FCP user. I am considering it based on what Apple shows us today.
Avid is holding a great promotion to switch over to Media Composer if you are an FCP user. I am considering it based on what Apple shows us today.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
Funny comment from Engadget:
Q: Why is my iphone tracking me?
A: It's not. It's tracking networks and cell towers near wherever you go.
Q: What is the difference between tracking me, and tracking the towers wherever I happen to go? Isn't that the same thing?
A: No. Because it's crowd-sourced. Total crowd size = 1.
Q: Umm. Ok? Soo. Why have you been keeping logs for the past year?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Then why was it unencrypted?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Right. Then why when I opted out did it ignore my choice?
A: That was a bug.
I think is quite conceivable that keeping those logs forever, not encrypting them, maintaining them despite an opt out, and not removing the timestamps was done in the spirit of: "Let's keep the data, maybe they will be useful at some point, and why bother do encrypt them, that is just some extra lines of code to write."
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
Q: Why is my iphone tracking me?
A: It's not. It's tracking networks and cell towers near wherever you go.
Q: What is the difference between tracking me, and tracking the towers wherever I happen to go? Isn't that the same thing?
A: No. Because it's crowd-sourced. Total crowd size = 1.
Q: Umm. Ok? Soo. Why have you been keeping logs for the past year?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Then why was it unencrypted?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Right. Then why when I opted out did it ignore my choice?
A: That was a bug.
I think is quite conceivable that keeping those logs forever, not encrypting them, maintaining them despite an opt out, and not removing the timestamps was done in the spirit of: "Let's keep the data, maybe they will be useful at some point, and why bother do encrypt them, that is just some extra lines of code to write."
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
pkson
Apr 19, 11:37 PM
lol... thanks! Dunno how I missed that.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
I remember Steve mentioning that at the iP4 keynote. ... (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, or just mentioning something that popped up in your mind.. whatever it is, I'll just take it at face value..) Yeah, I don't think Samsung can do something like that yet.. They haven't done much work with aluminum.. Plus, I doubt they'll even remotely copy anything by Apple in the future.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
I remember Steve mentioning that at the iP4 keynote. ... (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, or just mentioning something that popped up in your mind.. whatever it is, I'll just take it at face value..) Yeah, I don't think Samsung can do something like that yet.. They haven't done much work with aluminum.. Plus, I doubt they'll even remotely copy anything by Apple in the future.
Spagolli94
Nov 28, 10:51 PM
I was just reading some of the Zune comments on Amazon. Wow. Sounds like a really GREEEEAAAAT product.
11thIndian
Apr 11, 11:24 PM
Looking forward to the new final cut studio.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
Motion has a funny reputation. I find it quite powerful and very intuitive now that I've been using it almost exclusively for over a year. I know a lot of AE users find it very hard to make the mental leap to the different methodology, and I totally understand that as it took me several months of regular work to really adjust my headspace to the new way of thinking.
How the different parts of the Studio might be merged or changed is one of the more interesting questions for me. You could overload FCP if you tried to cram all the other apps together, but there's no question there's room for tighter integration.
It would be very surprising to see the different programs sold separately thought the appStore. The programs themselves aren't too massive [and may have been streamlined more] but the extra content for loops would make it a HEAFTY download for anyone!
This evening can't come soon enough, glad to have all the speculation over with and concentrate on what it actually is [and isn't].
If anyone comes up with a good liveblog or ustream of the presentation, remember to post it here. So far, the best coverage I can find it twitter feeds for people like Larry Jordan or Philip Hodgetts who will be in attendance.
if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.
If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...
it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...
I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.
do it apple. please.
Motion has a funny reputation. I find it quite powerful and very intuitive now that I've been using it almost exclusively for over a year. I know a lot of AE users find it very hard to make the mental leap to the different methodology, and I totally understand that as it took me several months of regular work to really adjust my headspace to the new way of thinking.
How the different parts of the Studio might be merged or changed is one of the more interesting questions for me. You could overload FCP if you tried to cram all the other apps together, but there's no question there's room for tighter integration.
It would be very surprising to see the different programs sold separately thought the appStore. The programs themselves aren't too massive [and may have been streamlined more] but the extra content for loops would make it a HEAFTY download for anyone!
This evening can't come soon enough, glad to have all the speculation over with and concentrate on what it actually is [and isn't].
If anyone comes up with a good liveblog or ustream of the presentation, remember to post it here. So far, the best coverage I can find it twitter feeds for people like Larry Jordan or Philip Hodgetts who will be in attendance.
Yvan256
Aug 6, 09:37 AM
Personally, I highly doubt we'll see ANY iPod/iTunes updates here... WWDC is historically a developer/pro event and not a consumer event.
Well, if the rumors of the "full-screen, touch-screen iPod" are true, maybe Apple will open it to developers and introduce a "make your own apps and games for the iPod" dev. kit, which would make sense at a WWDC.
Well, if the rumors of the "full-screen, touch-screen iPod" are true, maybe Apple will open it to developers and introduce a "make your own apps and games for the iPod" dev. kit, which would make sense at a WWDC.
justaregularjoe
Feb 28, 03:17 PM
Wow. I have never, ever in my life been so tempted to troll a MacRumors thread, nor have I ever been so infuriated by the use of a set of double quotation marks.
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
mikethebigo
Apr 6, 01:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
addicted44
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests. This is right. However, the moment you mention that to a Fandroid, they would go all ballistic about how you are just an Apple fanboy, or a hater.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down.
Blame the victim, much? Maybe Google shouldn't have been trumpeting its complete openness all day. And maybe they should have, like Apple, said what is allowed and what is not.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down.
Blame the victim, much? Maybe Google shouldn't have been trumpeting its complete openness all day. And maybe they should have, like Apple, said what is allowed and what is not.
SiliconAddict
Aug 5, 08:01 PM
*shrugs* I have no money so it not that big of a deal for me. It will be nice to know more about 10.5.
