skunk
Mar 4, 04:43 PM
Are they affiliated with WBC?
aliensporebomb
Apr 27, 09:47 AM
This is a lie
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
Incorrect - it's not tracking your direct location as you assert.
For instance, when you're visiting "Harry's Sex Shop and under the counter Heroin sales" it doesn't track that you're actually at that business.
It tracks that your phone contacted "AT&T Cellular Site 601-2L" which might be within line of sight of such a business or it might be in the surrounding neighborhood or somewhat nearby.
My own phone shows that I travel all over the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul since I am an IT staffer who journeys between 25 different offices all of the time that are dispersed all over town - and I think you would be hard pressed to find out ANYTHING from looking at that picture, it's a giant mess of dots all over town and one satellite facility southeast of town:
http://pod.ath.cx/iphone.jpg
Anyway. Yes, an enterprising thief with access to your phone could use it potentially. But as it is, collating that data would require some smarts and effort.
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
Incorrect - it's not tracking your direct location as you assert.
For instance, when you're visiting "Harry's Sex Shop and under the counter Heroin sales" it doesn't track that you're actually at that business.
It tracks that your phone contacted "AT&T Cellular Site 601-2L" which might be within line of sight of such a business or it might be in the surrounding neighborhood or somewhat nearby.
My own phone shows that I travel all over the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul since I am an IT staffer who journeys between 25 different offices all of the time that are dispersed all over town - and I think you would be hard pressed to find out ANYTHING from looking at that picture, it's a giant mess of dots all over town and one satellite facility southeast of town:
http://pod.ath.cx/iphone.jpg
Anyway. Yes, an enterprising thief with access to your phone could use it potentially. But as it is, collating that data would require some smarts and effort.
leekohler
Feb 28, 06:16 PM
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
Where did I say he could not have an opinion? All I said was that his opinion should have no bearing on my life.
Where did I say he could not have an opinion? All I said was that his opinion should have no bearing on my life.
rayz
Aug 8, 02:08 AM
From the Apple website...
Backup Disk: Change the drive or volume you�re backing up to. Or back up to a Mac OS X server computer.
Ouch .... :eek:
Backup Disk: Change the drive or volume you�re backing up to. Or back up to a Mac OS X server computer.
Ouch .... :eek:
yentrog31
Jun 13, 04:30 PM
Hello Guys!!
I posted my 3gs 32GB White IPhone on CRAIGSLIST and sold it to the 1st guy that called me
for $425 ...why are people settling for the Price that Radio Shack is offering ?????
I had over 10 calls in about 15 mins on my way to sell the phone...I am in Miami FL.... G O O D L U C K all !!
BTW ...I feel naked :eek: now w/o my IPhone and cant wait for FeDex to knock on my door on the 24th :D !
congrats..but why would anyone pay 425$ for a 3GS/32 when most can get the iPhone discount for a 4G for 74$ more?..I have 3GS/32 black and Im going to keep mine for a back-up phone/iPod/maybe sell it later/ and I'm getting the $499 discount since I'm not eligible for an upgrade til 3/11...glta
I posted my 3gs 32GB White IPhone on CRAIGSLIST and sold it to the 1st guy that called me
for $425 ...why are people settling for the Price that Radio Shack is offering ?????
I had over 10 calls in about 15 mins on my way to sell the phone...I am in Miami FL.... G O O D L U C K all !!
BTW ...I feel naked :eek: now w/o my IPhone and cant wait for FeDex to knock on my door on the 24th :D !
congrats..but why would anyone pay 425$ for a 3GS/32 when most can get the iPhone discount for a 4G for 74$ more?..I have 3GS/32 black and Im going to keep mine for a back-up phone/iPod/maybe sell it later/ and I'm getting the $499 discount since I'm not eligible for an upgrade til 3/11...glta
Popeye206
Apr 11, 02:26 PM
That's why god created the internet.......:D
Yeah.... but it sure is fun to go to the Mall and see all the stores with just a few shoppers each until you hit the Apple store which is almost always packed with people. :)
Yeah.... but it sure is fun to go to the Mall and see all the stores with just a few shoppers each until you hit the Apple store which is almost always packed with people. :)
toddybody
Apr 19, 01:55 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.
Awww...old TV's. :o *tear
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.
Awww...old TV's. :o *tear
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 01:37 PM
Couldn't Samsung just claim that the Galaxy S line is an evolution of the Samsung F700? Pretty strong argument for samsung.
yoak
Apr 6, 03:08 AM
4GB? Do you realize how many DVDs FCS is? Unless Apple is going to severely cut up the package and de-studio it, no way is 4GB nearly enough space. Aperture is fine as a download b/c it's a relatively small program. FCS is a monster. It needs to be on media. I can't hog up my bandwidth to d/l a 16+GB suite.
4GB is roughly the size of the apps in FCS, the other 40GB are loops, templates et.
4GB is roughly the size of the apps in FCS, the other 40GB are loops, templates et.
OrangeSVTguy
Apr 25, 04:23 PM
Guess we all now know what that new data center is going to be used for now.
leekohler
Feb 27, 11:46 PM
Normally, I would say they could fire the guy, but this is just not right. It seems someone was misled and it was not the college. Either way, the church will eventually come to realize just how misguided they are, or not- and go the way of the dinosaur. Either option is fine with me.
freeny
Aug 11, 10:29 AM
This is just a smoke screen for something else....;)
Slumpey
Apr 8, 06:53 AM
To avoid any hastle buy the ipad 2 from target. Was able to buy two on different days using their inventory tracker found on the web.. They don't hastle you with service plans, unnecessary accessories, etc which best buy does.
Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk
Dooger
Apr 8, 02:09 AM
Anyway, the iPad 2s aren't marked up, thus they make zero.
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps BB take a cut of Apple's share of the profit when they sell an iPad?
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps BB take a cut of Apple's share of the profit when they sell an iPad?
milozauckerman
Jul 14, 02:54 PM
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac
I'm talking about Core2 Duo machines - either Conroe or Woodcrest.
Ports? My G5 tower had no more ports than any other PC I've seen. My current CD iMac actually lacks any kind of high-speed port for external hard-drives or burners.
Software? OK, I know it's supposed to be a selling point, but there's not a damn thing outside of iTunes I use in iLife enough to justify hardware prices at any level. They're nice freebies, but I happily pay the Apple Tax to have an OS that works with me rather than against me. Unquestionably worth it, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm getting good value in the (theoretical) hardware.
I think I know what the apologists will say - no one else will offer Woodcrest in a low-end pro machine, they'll use Conroe. And yeah, that's probably true, but for a reason - there's no reason to put Woodcrest in the low-end tower offering, aside from a desire to perpetuate the artifical line distinctions. Which isn't going to cut it in the Intel world.
I'm talking about Core2 Duo machines - either Conroe or Woodcrest.
Ports? My G5 tower had no more ports than any other PC I've seen. My current CD iMac actually lacks any kind of high-speed port for external hard-drives or burners.
Software? OK, I know it's supposed to be a selling point, but there's not a damn thing outside of iTunes I use in iLife enough to justify hardware prices at any level. They're nice freebies, but I happily pay the Apple Tax to have an OS that works with me rather than against me. Unquestionably worth it, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm getting good value in the (theoretical) hardware.
I think I know what the apologists will say - no one else will offer Woodcrest in a low-end pro machine, they'll use Conroe. And yeah, that's probably true, but for a reason - there's no reason to put Woodcrest in the low-end tower offering, aside from a desire to perpetuate the artifical line distinctions. Which isn't going to cut it in the Intel world.
Androidpwns
Mar 22, 02:55 PM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Spot on post :D
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Spot on post :D
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
Burnsey
Apr 27, 09:23 PM
Technically he is eligible to be president even if he wasn't born in the US:
http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfreedman/2011/04/12/romney-to-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/
Not sure why this is such a big issue, the country is facing huge problems and you people need to work together and solve them. Set these distractions aside or you'll miss what's really going on.
http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfreedman/2011/04/12/romney-to-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/
Not sure why this is such a big issue, the country is facing huge problems and you people need to work together and solve them. Set these distractions aside or you'll miss what's really going on.
BRLawyer
Aug 20, 02:02 PM
Freescale? Where does Freescale have a 64 -bit spot on their road map? (I want to know) Could this be.. really? Freescale? Now there's a twist I for one, did not see
Are they still around? I thought their business was all about embedded procs for cars and radios... :rolleyes:
Are they still around? I thought their business was all about embedded procs for cars and radios... :rolleyes:
63dot
Apr 30, 03:05 PM
I wonder what it would be like to go through life looking for racism around every corner? Constantly seeing the world in these glasses would have to be very tiresome and frustrating. Pretty sad really. People need to stop thinking about themselves and others as being members of groups, and start thinking of everyone as individuals. We're a society of individuals, we get our rights and our liberties as individuals, not because we're part of group A or group B.
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
Though I don't agree with you much on some issues (except for the anti-nation building stuff), I have to say you have it right. We are individuals.
While there are some racists who tried to jump on the birther bandwagon, I did see plenty of non-racists have some concern about where Obama was born, or if in Hawaii, being born there before it was a state and then being a coverup to put his age right after statehood.
To be fair, some judges and constitutional experts were not quite sure about John McCain and his "eligibility" to run for office. Con law textbooks give both sides about this issue but are not declarative on what the answer is as to who is eligible to run. Can a person who committed perjury run for president? Then how did America let Clinton run after all the apparent lies he told federal prosecutors about Whitewater and his supposed ties to Tyson and letting them get by on environmental regs while he was governor or Arkansas?
During the 2008 election, these birther issues only came up sporadically, and America was far more interested in the important issues (Iraq, the recession, and finding somebody to put us out of the mess that W put us in).
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
Though I don't agree with you much on some issues (except for the anti-nation building stuff), I have to say you have it right. We are individuals.
While there are some racists who tried to jump on the birther bandwagon, I did see plenty of non-racists have some concern about where Obama was born, or if in Hawaii, being born there before it was a state and then being a coverup to put his age right after statehood.
To be fair, some judges and constitutional experts were not quite sure about John McCain and his "eligibility" to run for office. Con law textbooks give both sides about this issue but are not declarative on what the answer is as to who is eligible to run. Can a person who committed perjury run for president? Then how did America let Clinton run after all the apparent lies he told federal prosecutors about Whitewater and his supposed ties to Tyson and letting them get by on environmental regs while he was governor or Arkansas?
During the 2008 election, these birther issues only came up sporadically, and America was far more interested in the important issues (Iraq, the recession, and finding somebody to put us out of the mess that W put us in).
ChickenSwartz
Jul 27, 11:54 AM
Has anyone ever thought that the reasons the MBPs run hot is because they were originally designed to have a cooler chip in them...Merom.
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
skunk
Mar 3, 11:57 AM
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.On the other hand, people can live without morality, which is prescribed by outside influences, and live ethically, which is according to one's own lights.
I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?Why would any government - how could any government - legislate your feelings? You can feel what you like, just do not dress up your personal feelings as "truths" which others should acquiesce in.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.You may think they are "immoral", but your "morality" is yours, not anyone else's.
Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?What do you think?
I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?Why would any government - how could any government - legislate your feelings? You can feel what you like, just do not dress up your personal feelings as "truths" which others should acquiesce in.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.You may think they are "immoral", but your "morality" is yours, not anyone else's.
Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?What do you think?
SevenInchScrew
Dec 10, 01:06 AM
For all my whining and complaining about the game part of GT5, I still stand, firmly, behind my previous statement about how amazing "Photo Mode" is. It is the most amazing thing I've seen on a console this generation. The lighting engine in this game is beyond words. The vehicular "Uncanny Valley" is upon us....
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/ydtza.jpg
http://imgur.com/OdFGf.jpg
http://imgur.com/9rznQ.jpg
http://imgur.com/YtIud.jpg
http://imgur.com/OjHVn.jpg
http://imgur.com/wz6q6.jpg
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/ydtza.jpg
http://imgur.com/OdFGf.jpg
http://imgur.com/9rznQ.jpg
http://imgur.com/YtIud.jpg
http://imgur.com/OjHVn.jpg
http://imgur.com/wz6q6.jpg
DoFoT9
Aug 12, 02:35 AM
I know they are fundamentally two different types of games in a similar genre, but he brought up the sales of the series, so I offered up another racing game series with much higher sales.
similar genre given racing, but one is a simulator - the other is, a bit more fictional (in a sense).
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
similar genre given racing, but one is a simulator - the other is, a bit more fictional (in a sense).
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий