eric_n_dfw
Mar 21, 07:14 AM
I disagree with the comment put forth that the programmers are the ones that are breaking the law and the users aren't. Actually, it's the users who are.
Although, I'd asume the programmers also are users, so they too broke contract when they used it.
There might be something illegal about it's distribution, but I don't know enough about the law there.
Although, I'd asume the programmers also are users, so they too broke contract when they used it.
There might be something illegal about it's distribution, but I don't know enough about the law there.
Doctor Q
Sep 12, 03:27 PM
Apple may need to take steps to avoid confusing consumers. Their multiple consumer products make it complicated for people who don't know Apple's product line, aren't particuarly technical, aren't sure which are products Mac-only and which are cross platform, and don't know how their hardware, software, and O.S. fit together.
There are plenty of people out there who don't realize iPods are made by Apple, and iTV (whatever it's true name turns out to be) will confuse them further.
There are plenty of people out there who don't realize iPods are made by Apple, and iTV (whatever it's true name turns out to be) will confuse them further.
relimw
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
Is my 8-core MBP going to be announced tomorrow?!? It's a Tuesday after all!!!
Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Would the XServes not be the ideal choice to get Clovertown initially? I mean, we've already been through how few apps make really good use of all those cores, a server would make more sense.
Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Would the XServes not be the ideal choice to get Clovertown initially? I mean, we've already been through how few apps make really good use of all those cores, a server would make more sense.
paeza
Oct 26, 01:33 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess
beatle888
Mar 20, 08:24 PM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
skunk
Mar 14, 07:30 PM
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?I have been arguing that the ramifications of catastrophic failure of these plants, quite apart from any energy and pollution costs in building, keeping them running and decommissioning them, those ramifications alone serve to put nuclear power on a wholly different level. The equation has to be considered in its entirety. Taking the other costs into account makes it quite obvious that its just not worth it.
iAlan
Mar 11, 09:36 AM
I was at work when the quake hit. Building swayed (its a 3 year old building) more than anything I've experienced in my 10+ years in Tokyo. And the duration of the quake is what surprised (and unnerved me) the most as most are short - and the epicenter was 350K away from Tokyo.
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
Multimedia
Sep 26, 09:34 AM
Anyone know the current price of each 2.66GHz Woodcrest? I just got up and am too lazy to Google yet.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
ryme4reson
Oct 7, 09:30 PM
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Lepton
Oct 25, 11:00 PM
It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
gkarris
Oct 7, 10:20 PM
1 iPhone Model (3 capacities) on AT&T vs many different Android Phones on all the other providers...
Seems possible to me...
(I can see a FREE Android Touchscreen phone with unlimited voice, data, and text for $70/month from someone out there to try to beat AT&T's offering - which isn't very hard to do...:eek:)
Seems possible to me...
(I can see a FREE Android Touchscreen phone with unlimited voice, data, and text for $70/month from someone out there to try to beat AT&T's offering - which isn't very hard to do...:eek:)
leekohler
Mar 28, 03:22 AM
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they thought they they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still wouldn't accept gay sex. Neither would any orthodox pope.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 26, 11:58 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
In illustrator CS2 you would notice some improvement over a single processor machine on complex tasks such as use of the 3D tool and vector based special effects such as glow or shadow -- I would guess about 15% improvement -- I use illustrator daily and have tracked these processes via activity monitor.
I would bet that CS3 and versions after that will be optimized to use these processors.
I run Illustrator on a Quad G5 now and it makes a siginificant difference over the Dual G5's.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
Amen! Me Too! Quad G5 is just fine for now!
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
In illustrator CS2 you would notice some improvement over a single processor machine on complex tasks such as use of the 3D tool and vector based special effects such as glow or shadow -- I would guess about 15% improvement -- I use illustrator daily and have tracked these processes via activity monitor.
I would bet that CS3 and versions after that will be optimized to use these processors.
I run Illustrator on a Quad G5 now and it makes a siginificant difference over the Dual G5's.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
Amen! Me Too! Quad G5 is just fine for now!
StudioGuy
Sep 26, 10:45 AM
I originally thought that this would make a nice "best" model for the Mac Pro, but the 5160 is surely a great chip. Given the slower clock speed (although not always a good indicator) and more cores, this might be a great chip for a Server, like an updated XServe.
Not sure if the software guys are going to catch up enough in multithreading to make good use of 8 cores, but several folks on an XServe would appreciate it.
Not sure if the software guys are going to catch up enough in multithreading to make good use of 8 cores, but several folks on an XServe would appreciate it.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
This sentiment leads to defeat on all fronts. It is also used by people against the particular issue to divide and conquer.
In this case, someone who really wants bullying of another segment of the population specifically addressed should embrace the start of the one movement already begun and network with the people involved to gather their support in embracing the other issue or including it.
Simply arguing one movement on an issue is not worthy of support because it is not all inclusive is not helping anyone.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
This sentiment leads to defeat on all fronts. It is also used by people against the particular issue to divide and conquer.
In this case, someone who really wants bullying of another segment of the population specifically addressed should embrace the start of the one movement already begun and network with the people involved to gather their support in embracing the other issue or including it.
Simply arguing one movement on an issue is not worthy of support because it is not all inclusive is not helping anyone.
McKellar
Oct 6, 12:44 AM
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 09:28 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
Cape Cod Rick
Jul 7, 06:00 AM
I love my new IPhone 4. However, I am dropping many more calls with the IPhone 4 than I did with IPhone 3G!! Yesterday, my phone dropped 3 calls- even when I was holding the phone with only two fingers and away from the bottom!!
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:45 PM
For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
...but they are a lesser chip in some ways (more so if you also consider the chipset)...
(not forgetting AMD in the following... just trying to keep it simple... also note when I say Conroe or Woodcrest I am also implying different class of chipsets)
The simple fact is workstation class systems from most vendors (in recent history) are usually based on Xeon (now Woodcrest) CPUs with 2 sockets (if not more) while desktop class systems from most vendors are are based on Pentium 4/D (soon Conroe) CPUs with 1 socket.
So the question is will Apple replace the PowerMac G5 with a true workstation class system, or will they split the PowerMac into a desktop tower and workstation with the former using Conroe and the later using Woodcrest, or will they use Conroe only (and for the moment not have a quad core system), etc.
Historically I have stated that Apple will use Conroe in a PowerMac replacement and wait for Kentsfield to bring back the quad (doing that would give them great performance and price point)... but looking at the timing of things now (and Intel price drops) I am starting to believe either Apple will go all Woodcrest for the PowerMac (truly make it a workstation class system) or go all Woodcrest for a workstation Mac and bring out a lower end tower that uses Conroe.
...but they are a lesser chip in some ways (more so if you also consider the chipset)...
(not forgetting AMD in the following... just trying to keep it simple... also note when I say Conroe or Woodcrest I am also implying different class of chipsets)
The simple fact is workstation class systems from most vendors (in recent history) are usually based on Xeon (now Woodcrest) CPUs with 2 sockets (if not more) while desktop class systems from most vendors are are based on Pentium 4/D (soon Conroe) CPUs with 1 socket.
So the question is will Apple replace the PowerMac G5 with a true workstation class system, or will they split the PowerMac into a desktop tower and workstation with the former using Conroe and the later using Woodcrest, or will they use Conroe only (and for the moment not have a quad core system), etc.
Historically I have stated that Apple will use Conroe in a PowerMac replacement and wait for Kentsfield to bring back the quad (doing that would give them great performance and price point)... but looking at the timing of things now (and Intel price drops) I am starting to believe either Apple will go all Woodcrest for the PowerMac (truly make it a workstation class system) or go all Woodcrest for a workstation Mac and bring out a lower end tower that uses Conroe.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 07:53 PM
They are in real trouble now, can only hope the winds keep things blowing out to sea. I was hoping to get home from work to see things finally under control.... not the exact opposite. :(
archipellago
May 2, 04:47 PM
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
IanC
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
I appreciate what DVD Jon did to help Linux owners watch dvds, but this is going to far. I hope Apple come up with a fix for this, and soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment