supafly1703
Jul 27, 09:43 AM
C'mon Steve, wow us...
sittnick
Apr 19, 01:50 PM
BREAKING NEWS --- 1979 --
http://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/3_ab121w.jpghttp://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/4_gebw.jpg
RCA Launches Suit Against General Electric for infringement of 9" b&w television interface and "look and feel."
Spokesmen for RCA maintain that GE's misappropriation of the LīfLīk� Trūwūd� woodgrain finish, leading consumers to confuse the GE imitation with the RCA original.
Also note GE's nearly identical VHF and UHF controllers ... placed in the same location on the chassis as the RCA original. Even the speaker is located in the same way.
RCA patented the use of separate VHF and UHF knobs in 1958, the click-stop UHF knob in 1972, and the ergonomically efficient upper right location of tuner knobs in 1952. The characteristics are innovations that help the consumer recognize an RCA television, and any use of these unique features without RCA's explicit permission is a breach of patent, trademark and copyright.
http://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/3_ab121w.jpghttp://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/4_gebw.jpg
RCA Launches Suit Against General Electric for infringement of 9" b&w television interface and "look and feel."
Spokesmen for RCA maintain that GE's misappropriation of the LīfLīk� Trūwūd� woodgrain finish, leading consumers to confuse the GE imitation with the RCA original.
Also note GE's nearly identical VHF and UHF controllers ... placed in the same location on the chassis as the RCA original. Even the speaker is located in the same way.
RCA patented the use of separate VHF and UHF knobs in 1958, the click-stop UHF knob in 1972, and the ergonomically efficient upper right location of tuner knobs in 1952. The characteristics are innovations that help the consumer recognize an RCA television, and any use of these unique features without RCA's explicit permission is a breach of patent, trademark and copyright.
mkjellman
Aug 25, 02:52 PM
well, i've been on the phone with apple 13 times in the past month. other than very long hold times, which is unusual, my issues have been completely resolved each time to my complete satistaction. i don't know if people are upset at the 15+ minute hold times, but i think apple is still doing what they do best.
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 19, 02:25 PM
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard™ cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:53 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
Fantastic UI for the day
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
Fantastic UI for the day
leekohler
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
What is absolutely hilarious last night their were sound bites of Republican's asking "Why did Obama bring this birth certificate thing up, we have work to do!!"
Hypocrites til the end. They'll be like this forever. A bunch of petty children.
Hypocrites til the end. They'll be like this forever. A bunch of petty children.
G5power
Jul 27, 09:48 AM
Assuming August 7 as an announcement date of new systems, the waiting is killer.
63dot
Aug 17, 05:33 PM
With no intention of jumping into the argument in question here, I have a slight issue with your definition of a gamer. I'm an intermediate photoshop user, web designer, and gamer. I don't just use my computer for games or work, there's this huge gray area in the middle. For me, the Mac Pro is the best of all worlds. I wouldn't dare rely on Windows for my workflow, design, and productivity software, OS X is a must for me. However, the ability to duat boot into Windows and play games natively is a bonus, one that I'm willing to pay a premium for, and whether or not it's even a premium is up for debate. Sure, I could build a PC just for games but if I can't run OS X ever then that machine is useless for me.
I'd be surprised if there weren't many more people out there who welcome the power of the Mac Pros for work and play, recognizing of course that the majority of buyers will be professionals.
well said
as for xp vs. os x, i can live with xp if i had to and do the adobe stuff on it, but i would always be looking over my shoulder for viruses and junk filling up my machine every time i went online
i would also have to invest in a virus suite and keep the darn thing updated all the time
all i have ever put on macs has been anti-virus and have never run into any problems and as for even seeing a virus on an unprotected mac, as a tech for 7 years, i haven't
i do love that "mac dude and pc dude" commercial campaign that apple has been putting out and i hope some pc only users see the light
I'd be surprised if there weren't many more people out there who welcome the power of the Mac Pros for work and play, recognizing of course that the majority of buyers will be professionals.
well said
as for xp vs. os x, i can live with xp if i had to and do the adobe stuff on it, but i would always be looking over my shoulder for viruses and junk filling up my machine every time i went online
i would also have to invest in a virus suite and keep the darn thing updated all the time
all i have ever put on macs has been anti-virus and have never run into any problems and as for even seeing a virus on an unprotected mac, as a tech for 7 years, i haven't
i do love that "mac dude and pc dude" commercial campaign that apple has been putting out and i hope some pc only users see the light
twoodcc
Aug 8, 02:42 PM
I've seen several people saying that it's starting to be a car encyclopedia rather than an enjoyable racing game. I kinda agree with that. My last experience with GT is GT2 on PS1 I think but I'm looking forward on this game. Hopefully it will be what I expect, a good, solid driving game. I hope they have spent time on the actual driving too, not just with the cars and 3D stuff etc
i don't know, i still think the Gran Turismo series is the best as far as real driving simulation. by far. and the number of copies sold backs that up
me too!! i am So excited! i wont pre order or anything, might save for a steering wheel though. :)
yeah i still might pre-order the special edition one. i'm not sure yet
i don't know, i still think the Gran Turismo series is the best as far as real driving simulation. by far. and the number of copies sold backs that up
me too!! i am So excited! i wont pre order or anything, might save for a steering wheel though. :)
yeah i still might pre-order the special edition one. i'm not sure yet
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 01:51 PM
It's neither moral nor virtuous to be against the rights of your fellow citizens. Just sayin'
What rights: civil ones, human ones, merely legal ones, or moral ones? As I've already said, moral liberty consists of the ability to adopt the means to do the good.[/quote]
One has to wonder why conservatives get so wrapped up in social issues when there are so many other things on the plate. Things like abortion and gays will never go away. It's just as stupid to obsess over them as it is to obsess over Obama's birth certificate. Let's fix the economy and put people back to work. Those are the real problems. Anything else is a distraction.
I'm not obsessing about anything. Maybe abortion and gay rights will never go away. But does that mean I should stop fighting, say, abortion? Think about it, liberals. Each time a doctor aborts a baby, the government forfeits the tax revenue it would have collected from the baby if he survived, grew up, and worked. The U.S. population is aging, and too few babies are being born to maintain the country's population. Whether liberals like it or not, the government me need to shrink when there are too few taxpayers to give it the revenue it demands.
Put nursing home patients on social programs when their families or their friends take care of them instead. As nursing home populations grow, so do tax rates. As tax rates go up, more people lose their low-paying jobs and discover that welfare gives them more money than they earned at their low-paying jobs. As more and more get welfare, taxes go up and up.
Sure, we need to repair the economy. That's partly why we need major tax-cuts and major spending-cuts. The $38 billion is insignificant, especially when government spending offsets it.
Tolerance isn't either approval or indifference. To tolerate something is to endure an evil to prevent a greater evil or to get a great good.
What rights: civil ones, human ones, merely legal ones, or moral ones? As I've already said, moral liberty consists of the ability to adopt the means to do the good.[/quote]
One has to wonder why conservatives get so wrapped up in social issues when there are so many other things on the plate. Things like abortion and gays will never go away. It's just as stupid to obsess over them as it is to obsess over Obama's birth certificate. Let's fix the economy and put people back to work. Those are the real problems. Anything else is a distraction.
I'm not obsessing about anything. Maybe abortion and gay rights will never go away. But does that mean I should stop fighting, say, abortion? Think about it, liberals. Each time a doctor aborts a baby, the government forfeits the tax revenue it would have collected from the baby if he survived, grew up, and worked. The U.S. population is aging, and too few babies are being born to maintain the country's population. Whether liberals like it or not, the government me need to shrink when there are too few taxpayers to give it the revenue it demands.
Put nursing home patients on social programs when their families or their friends take care of them instead. As nursing home populations grow, so do tax rates. As tax rates go up, more people lose their low-paying jobs and discover that welfare gives them more money than they earned at their low-paying jobs. As more and more get welfare, taxes go up and up.
Sure, we need to repair the economy. That's partly why we need major tax-cuts and major spending-cuts. The $38 billion is insignificant, especially when government spending offsets it.
Tolerance isn't either approval or indifference. To tolerate something is to endure an evil to prevent a greater evil or to get a great good.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 10:09 PM
In a world full of computers, I want to be helped by a human with common sense.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
Squire
Jul 15, 08:12 AM
A real mess? That's one fine looking machine. IMO
Yeah, I wish I had the 4 grand to buy one. I guess that's one of the reasons I can't get too excited about these (rumored) new machines. No way in hell I'll be able to afford one. No...no way in hell I'll be able to justify spending that much on a computer (Read: "I'd like to but I have a wife and I would never be able to convince her." BTW, how's life, ~Shard~? :D)
Again, as millions of other MacRumors members have pointed out, a cheap Mac Pro would rock. But, alas... <Sigh>
-Squire
Yeah, I wish I had the 4 grand to buy one. I guess that's one of the reasons I can't get too excited about these (rumored) new machines. No way in hell I'll be able to afford one. No...no way in hell I'll be able to justify spending that much on a computer (Read: "I'd like to but I have a wife and I would never be able to convince her." BTW, how's life, ~Shard~? :D)
Again, as millions of other MacRumors members have pointed out, a cheap Mac Pro would rock. But, alas... <Sigh>
-Squire
*LTD*
Apr 27, 09:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
It's nice that this month's "Apple-gate" story will start to die. I can't wait to see what the media generates next month in the "Apple-gate" saga.
Antennagate
Locationgate
C'mon, Apple competitors, think up your next outrage.
Who cares about all this overblown nonsense. I just want my damn iPad 2. Those bloody things sell out as soon as anyone gets any amount of stock.
It's nice that this month's "Apple-gate" story will start to die. I can't wait to see what the media generates next month in the "Apple-gate" saga.
Antennagate
Locationgate
C'mon, Apple competitors, think up your next outrage.
Who cares about all this overblown nonsense. I just want my damn iPad 2. Those bloody things sell out as soon as anyone gets any amount of stock.
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:26 AM
Come on APPLE! My pocket is full and ready for a New C2D MacBook! :D
Leoff
Sep 19, 08:25 AM
You may be right to a certain extent, but l i assumed that most people who want a Macbook Pro are going to be using it for intensive stuff - I was under the impressions that Macs are the platform of choice for a lot of graphics professionals etc so the high end line would have a lot of those kind of ppl buying. Granted the difference in speed will probably be fairly minimal, but when you are spending a load of cash on a top-of-the line notebook, why shouldnt you expect to have the latest and greatest technology available? It also seems quite likely they might either make them cheaper, or offer more RAM on the base model etc. so buying now unless you really have to seems foolish.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
Note that I, and the previous commenter who I quoted, have been talking about MacBooks, not MacBook Pros.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
Note that I, and the previous commenter who I quoted, have been talking about MacBooks, not MacBook Pros.
peharri
Jul 14, 03:11 PM
Some of this makes sense, some of it not.
I think AppleInsider is right about the case. With the exception of the MacBook, whose design has been rumoured for years and clearly was something Apple would have done even had this been the "iBook G5", Apple has made it a point with all of their Intelizations to use the same case as the predecessor, as if to say "It's business as usual, all we've changed is the processor." So from that point of view, the PowerMac G5 case being, more or less, the Mac Pro case, makes a lot of sense.
Two optical drives? No, sorry, not seeing the reasoning. The reasons given so far don't add up:
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
It's also kind of easy to see where this rumour might have originated, in some garbled communication where the rumourmonger says "Two optical drive formats", or "Two bays", or "Multiple media readers" (hey, why not put an SD/CF/MS reader on the front? Pretty much everyone uses them these days, especially the prosumer-market Apple is after. Bet there are more people who'd use an SD card reader than a Firewire port.)
I've been wrong before, but I'm going to go for a traditional PowerMac G5 enclosure, and a single optical drive which may, or may not, support Blu-ray in some shape or form.
I think AppleInsider is right about the case. With the exception of the MacBook, whose design has been rumoured for years and clearly was something Apple would have done even had this been the "iBook G5", Apple has made it a point with all of their Intelizations to use the same case as the predecessor, as if to say "It's business as usual, all we've changed is the processor." So from that point of view, the PowerMac G5 case being, more or less, the Mac Pro case, makes a lot of sense.
Two optical drives? No, sorry, not seeing the reasoning. The reasons given so far don't add up:
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
It's also kind of easy to see where this rumour might have originated, in some garbled communication where the rumourmonger says "Two optical drive formats", or "Two bays", or "Multiple media readers" (hey, why not put an SD/CF/MS reader on the front? Pretty much everyone uses them these days, especially the prosumer-market Apple is after. Bet there are more people who'd use an SD card reader than a Firewire port.)
I've been wrong before, but I'm going to go for a traditional PowerMac G5 enclosure, and a single optical drive which may, or may not, support Blu-ray in some shape or form.
applefanDrew
Mar 25, 11:25 PM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I'm pretty susre you don't HAVE to use the new stuff. Old expose is still there for instance.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I'm pretty susre you don't HAVE to use the new stuff. Old expose is still there for instance.
phalseHUD
Apr 10, 01:58 PM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
Couldn't agree more, disgraceful to be honest. This part of Apple I cannot abide.
Couldn't agree more, disgraceful to be honest. This part of Apple I cannot abide.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 01:34 PM
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).When we hit that wall, I'll let you know. :p
Hey everybody the Big News is
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
CBS Morning now looks totally pathetic. What a revolting development. CBS hires Katie and don't advance the news department to high-def while NBC totally goes High Def with Merideth. Wow! Talk about a cou-de-gras!
NBC Nightly News can't be far behind. I'm so excited. Getting my Mom a High Definition Set For Christmas.
Hey everybody the Big News is
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
CBS Morning now looks totally pathetic. What a revolting development. CBS hires Katie and don't advance the news department to high-def while NBC totally goes High Def with Merideth. Wow! Talk about a cou-de-gras!
NBC Nightly News can't be far behind. I'm so excited. Getting my Mom a High Definition Set For Christmas.
bigandy
Aug 5, 04:41 PM
cmon, ipod.....
WWDC = World Wide Developer Conference.
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
WWDC = World Wide Developer Conference.
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
mabaker
Mar 31, 09:32 PM
Free, open, and free!!!!!!!!! Google fanboiis have been raving about Apple and Google is turning into the very same Xerox machine like the whole others out there. Not that it wasn�t copying Apple in first place.
It�s juts ironical.
It�s juts ironical.
diamond.g
Apr 12, 06:46 PM
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
I personally wouldn't recommend people buy a subsidized phone, but people are price sensitive. YMMV. :(
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
I personally wouldn't recommend people buy a subsidized phone, but people are price sensitive. YMMV. :(
CaoCao
Mar 4, 01:46 PM
This is true because you say it's true?
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
MacinDoc
Sep 19, 01:14 PM
I'm finding it hilarious that you can put yourself into Stevie's reality distortion field even after the Intel switch. Maybe while Apple had PPC, you could have said that. But now that direct hardware comparisons can be made, don't you think it's stupid that sub-$1000 PC notebooks have better processors than the best Apple has to offer?
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
Sorry, but you're in an Intel RDF if you think that a 1.66 GHz C2D is a better processor than a 2.33 GHz CD. For practical purposes, the only differences at this time between CD and C2D are SSE3 instructions and slightly better power management. Nonetheless, you can rest assured that C2D MBPs will be SHIPPING by Sept. 25.
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
Sorry, but you're in an Intel RDF if you think that a 1.66 GHz C2D is a better processor than a 2.33 GHz CD. For practical purposes, the only differences at this time between CD and C2D are SSE3 instructions and slightly better power management. Nonetheless, you can rest assured that C2D MBPs will be SHIPPING by Sept. 25.
No comments:
Post a Comment