Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
CrackedButter
Aug 26, 03:07 PM
One more update for .mac in Sept. If they don't give me a compelling reason to continue, next year I will not re-subscribe. There I made my mind. LOL
For some reason I watched this year's MacWorld Keynote again tonight and I didn't realise the amount of new features there are in the new iLife 06. A lot of them deal with .mac. I'm quite happy with those features if and when I get iLife 06 or even a new mac at some point.
I would say they are improving the service but it doesn't happen overnight.
For some reason I watched this year's MacWorld Keynote again tonight and I didn't realise the amount of new features there are in the new iLife 06. A lot of them deal with .mac. I'm quite happy with those features if and when I get iLife 06 or even a new mac at some point.
I would say they are improving the service but it doesn't happen overnight.
SevenInchScrew
Sep 1, 11:38 AM
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.
NAG
Mar 31, 04:17 PM
I look ace in a Trilby.
You'd best stop then old fella (yea, I can play forum clich�d response 101 as well, /tips-hat)
Well at least you are an honest troll. Can't say that about everyone who starts attacking groups of people over their OS choice. *shrug*
You'd best stop then old fella (yea, I can play forum clich�d response 101 as well, /tips-hat)
Well at least you are an honest troll. Can't say that about everyone who starts attacking groups of people over their OS choice. *shrug*
meanmusic
Jul 27, 09:32 PM
You didn't really just link to MOSR, did you? :p
Anyway, I have the sneaking suspicion that we will see Core 2 Duo/Extreme-related computer announcements next week, and not at WWDC. WWDC will get major coverage anyway because of Leopard (which could easily take up the whole keynote). So why not spread the Apple press over 2 weeks?
Moreover, everyone announced new computers today. Apple might have wanted to avoid the first-day glut of releases, but they might not want to wait almost 2 full weeks to announce a Mac Pro.
My wild guess is Mac Daddy Extreme and/or iMaconroe on Tuesday with near-immediate availability, and announcement of MeromBook Pro at WWDC with early September availability.
I'm hoping for Merom news at WWDC but Fujitsu announced Merom laptops that will only be available sometime in Q4 I hope the same isn't true for the MBP.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
Anyway, I have the sneaking suspicion that we will see Core 2 Duo/Extreme-related computer announcements next week, and not at WWDC. WWDC will get major coverage anyway because of Leopard (which could easily take up the whole keynote). So why not spread the Apple press over 2 weeks?
Moreover, everyone announced new computers today. Apple might have wanted to avoid the first-day glut of releases, but they might not want to wait almost 2 full weeks to announce a Mac Pro.
My wild guess is Mac Daddy Extreme and/or iMaconroe on Tuesday with near-immediate availability, and announcement of MeromBook Pro at WWDC with early September availability.
I'm hoping for Merom news at WWDC but Fujitsu announced Merom laptops that will only be available sometime in Q4 I hope the same isn't true for the MBP.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
NJRonbo
Jun 22, 09:05 AM
ugp,
Were there any PINS given in your store?
Please keep us updated. We look forward to it.
Thanks
Were there any PINS given in your store?
Please keep us updated. We look forward to it.
Thanks
Eidorian
Jul 14, 05:21 PM
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)Ok, here's ANOTHER can of worms. Since we're on EFI now and can boot in Windows. It means our video cards, etc. don't have Open Firmware BIOS. Does that mean ANY "Windows" video card will work as long as OS X has drivers for it? Does OS X even have generic VGA drivers?
rickjs
Apr 6, 03:15 PM
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
EXACTLY! But it doesn't make the Xoom or the iPad 2 any less of a great product. I advice everyone who gets a chance to use it. Actually use the Xoom and see it's not so bad. I really think many of you guys are just hating on it because it's not an apple product so it obviously can't compare. -_-
EXACTLY! But it doesn't make the Xoom or the iPad 2 any less of a great product. I advice everyone who gets a chance to use it. Actually use the Xoom and see it's not so bad. I really think many of you guys are just hating on it because it's not an apple product so it obviously can't compare. -_-
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:53 PM
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level....
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
mkrishnan
Aug 7, 04:22 PM
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
*shrug* I don't think TM is a copy of System Restore. But I think how much that feature has caught on with Win users is also not unrelated to the presence of TM in Leopard. All's fair in love, war, and operating systems. :)
*shrug* I don't think TM is a copy of System Restore. But I think how much that feature has caught on with Win users is also not unrelated to the presence of TM in Leopard. All's fair in love, war, and operating systems. :)
rovex
Mar 22, 02:27 PM
Actually it is less than 50% the screen area of an iPad. Maybe you should check your math before calling someone stupid.
iPad display is about 45 square inches
Playbook display is about 21.5 square inches
I got confused, but nonetheless the smaller screen results in smaller body which in turn means better portability. Which A LOT of individuals want.
And before calling out irony, "your maths" has an 's' at the end. Thanks for playing.
iPad display is about 45 square inches
Playbook display is about 21.5 square inches
I got confused, but nonetheless the smaller screen results in smaller body which in turn means better portability. Which A LOT of individuals want.
And before calling out irony, "your maths" has an 's' at the end. Thanks for playing.
Miss Terri
Apr 7, 09:24 PM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Nope, I touch type.
BUT, when I'm just lying around on the couch websurfing or reading something on the screen, then my hand is on the mouse pad, and when I need to reach up to hit a command-key or type a lazy couple of words into chat, or type in a password, or etc. then I LOVE the backlit keyboard. It's amazing how often it comes in handy.
Sure, I can get along without it - my current MBP is the first computer I've had with it. But do I WANT to get along without it? NooOOOooo!
But it's not because I have to look at the keys while normally typing.
MT
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Nope, I touch type.
BUT, when I'm just lying around on the couch websurfing or reading something on the screen, then my hand is on the mouse pad, and when I need to reach up to hit a command-key or type a lazy couple of words into chat, or type in a password, or etc. then I LOVE the backlit keyboard. It's amazing how often it comes in handy.
Sure, I can get along without it - my current MBP is the first computer I've had with it. But do I WANT to get along without it? NooOOOooo!
But it's not because I have to look at the keys while normally typing.
MT
Synapple
Apr 20, 02:00 PM
Let's not forget that big companies file lawsuits not only when they think they have a rock solid case.
Lawsuits are also filed to 1) deter competitors (not only the specific one that gets sued) and 2) raise a point in the media (in this case the point being Apple invents, competitors are copycats).
Of course, had the case been deemed totally unfounded by Apple Legal and their bunch of advisors, it wouldn't have been brought to court at all.
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
Conversely, solid lawsuits are not brought forward because of the bad impact sueing might have in the media.
In this case Apple might have sued not necessarily because they think they'll win, but also, and maybe most importantly, to reinstate their position in the market. Even though some might read this as a crazy action from Apple, it is also likely that people with no particular tech interest (and still potential customers) will hear about it and get the message that Apple is defending what they have invented against a copycat.
Lawsuits are also filed to 1) deter competitors (not only the specific one that gets sued) and 2) raise a point in the media (in this case the point being Apple invents, competitors are copycats).
Of course, had the case been deemed totally unfounded by Apple Legal and their bunch of advisors, it wouldn't have been brought to court at all.
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
Conversely, solid lawsuits are not brought forward because of the bad impact sueing might have in the media.
In this case Apple might have sued not necessarily because they think they'll win, but also, and maybe most importantly, to reinstate their position in the market. Even though some might read this as a crazy action from Apple, it is also likely that people with no particular tech interest (and still potential customers) will hear about it and get the message that Apple is defending what they have invented against a copycat.
skunk
Mar 22, 08:27 AM
Sometimes silence speaks more than words. Your avoidance of the central issue, and irrelevant or at least less relevant focus on the size, and militarism of coalition countries indicates a lack of understanding or a willful avoidance of the issue I brought up... the 'anti-change' Obama really stands for and the hypocrisy of those on the left and the American media in general when it comes to wartime actions of Dem and Repub presidentsI could not be less interested in taking part in one your tedious party political rants. I was simply suggesting a blindingly obvious reason for the difference between the size of the bought coalition of the craven in 2003 and the present effort. You brought that up, nobody else.
afrowq
Apr 6, 10:09 PM
I use FCP and am VERY hesitant to go back to Premiere. Haven't used it since Premiere 6.0, and definitely do NOT want to go back. I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in Apple and FCP, and it would be a huge pain to abandon them. But I absolutely will jump ship if the next update to FCP doesn't show me that Apple is still paying attention to the professional users that initially were the bread and butter of the company.
Full of Win
Mar 22, 01:29 PM
Lack of Flash support is the achilles heel of iPad. I hope Jobs gets off his high horse and relents.
Don't hold your breath. There are many words that one can use to describe Steve Jobs, contrite or compromising not being one of them.
Don't hold your breath. There are many words that one can use to describe Steve Jobs, contrite or compromising not being one of them.
Virtualball
Apr 19, 02:32 PM
It appears from the F700's standpoint though the natural progression became TouchWiz.
Wrong. Just because a company released one phone that has a similar look as the iPhone doesn't mean their current offerings are a progression of that phone. It's a true testament as to who browses this forum if you honestly think that. The F700 didn't run an advanced OS, so it probably ran Symbian or used BREW. That means all Samsung did was create a theme. How does a theme they made 3 years prior to the Galaxy S mean it's a progression on the coding and UI they built? It doesn't. Here's a list of every Samsung phone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Samsung_mobile_phones Now, pick out one of those and say it inspired all of their new devices 3 years later.
The F700 was an iPhone clone with a keyboard. It's depressing that people are saying that the iPhone copied its own clone.
Wrong. Just because a company released one phone that has a similar look as the iPhone doesn't mean their current offerings are a progression of that phone. It's a true testament as to who browses this forum if you honestly think that. The F700 didn't run an advanced OS, so it probably ran Symbian or used BREW. That means all Samsung did was create a theme. How does a theme they made 3 years prior to the Galaxy S mean it's a progression on the coding and UI they built? It doesn't. Here's a list of every Samsung phone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Samsung_mobile_phones Now, pick out one of those and say it inspired all of their new devices 3 years later.
The F700 was an iPhone clone with a keyboard. It's depressing that people are saying that the iPhone copied its own clone.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:40 PM
Boy. Why do we go back and forth like this arguing between fanboys and non. It's pointless. Nobody cares about your or my opinion, and you're not convincing anyone who disagrees with you as people NEVER change their opinions about anything ever.
I'm not why I do it either, but never again.
Talking to me?
I am not trying to convince; simply stating opinions by providing facts. Problem?
I'm not why I do it either, but never again.
Talking to me?
I am not trying to convince; simply stating opinions by providing facts. Problem?
Ladybug
Aug 7, 06:28 PM
If you were picking on Mail.app's Stationery I'd probably agree with you.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company, has a similar feature for restoring single files. This isn't quite the same thing, but the whole concept isn't entirely new. GoBack was introduced well before Microsoft came out with System Restore... That said, I think its a great feature to include and I'm sure I'll find many uses for it.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company, has a similar feature for restoring single files. This isn't quite the same thing, but the whole concept isn't entirely new. GoBack was introduced well before Microsoft came out with System Restore... That said, I think its a great feature to include and I'm sure I'll find many uses for it.
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 04:34 PM
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
I like how you completely ignored the part of my post that proved your claim to be wrong. :rolleyes:
I like how you completely ignored the part of my post that proved your claim to be wrong. :rolleyes:
081440
Aug 18, 08:31 PM
My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!
NO WAY!! that would be awesome
NO WAY!! that would be awesome
leekohler
Mar 3, 10:30 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Oh please. Can the condescension. If you know what I meant, there no reason for you to give me a dictionary link. And gee- could you be a little more insulting assuming that I don't know what sodomy is? Wow. Hey Bill, newsflash- I'm an adult- 43 years old. I went to college. I know what words mean, but I guess I should have been more clear and said "anal sex". Next time I will. I also know that people express themselves with words in different ways and that words can have several meanings due to their context. Apparently you do too. And by the way, I did mean "feel", not "believe". Your zeal on this subject is indicative of that.
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
That's an awfully big "if" Bill- and certainly not one I'm willing to bet my life on. BTW- man made God and the Bible. You guys made your own rules.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
But you want to make sure Big Brother keeps us from being able to marry. You absolutely do. It's about control for you, Bill. Admit it.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
They're called condoms, Bill. Sensible people use them to protect against the very things you describe. Because ya know, we DO know about such things. Oh wait- that's against your Catholic teaching. So much so, that your religion tells people in Africa not to use them, making the AIDS epidemic even worse. Thanks for that.
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
Bill- if you were sincere about this, you would support the gay rights movement and support equal marriage rights for gay people. Your examples are silly. Everyone has the right to speak out against opinions they oppose. In none of the examples you used is anyone trying to legally deny anyone anything. People are entitled to their opinions. people are NOT entitled to deny others legal rights simply because they disagree with them. No one is trying to pass a law against Glenn Beck or you. You guys ARE trying to pass laws against us.
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Oh please. Can the condescension. If you know what I meant, there no reason for you to give me a dictionary link. And gee- could you be a little more insulting assuming that I don't know what sodomy is? Wow. Hey Bill, newsflash- I'm an adult- 43 years old. I went to college. I know what words mean, but I guess I should have been more clear and said "anal sex". Next time I will. I also know that people express themselves with words in different ways and that words can have several meanings due to their context. Apparently you do too. And by the way, I did mean "feel", not "believe". Your zeal on this subject is indicative of that.
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
That's an awfully big "if" Bill- and certainly not one I'm willing to bet my life on. BTW- man made God and the Bible. You guys made your own rules.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
But you want to make sure Big Brother keeps us from being able to marry. You absolutely do. It's about control for you, Bill. Admit it.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
They're called condoms, Bill. Sensible people use them to protect against the very things you describe. Because ya know, we DO know about such things. Oh wait- that's against your Catholic teaching. So much so, that your religion tells people in Africa not to use them, making the AIDS epidemic even worse. Thanks for that.
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
Bill- if you were sincere about this, you would support the gay rights movement and support equal marriage rights for gay people. Your examples are silly. Everyone has the right to speak out against opinions they oppose. In none of the examples you used is anyone trying to legally deny anyone anything. People are entitled to their opinions. people are NOT entitled to deny others legal rights simply because they disagree with them. No one is trying to pass a law against Glenn Beck or you. You guys ARE trying to pass laws against us.
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 04:10 PM
hey ill be happy as apple keeps the mac pro on the cutting edge, but anything to be able to bring the ram cost down would be awesome.
this buffered ram is expensive.
all the other ram out there is getting cheaper, but not this stuff they want in the mac pro.
this buffered ram is expensive.
all the other ram out there is getting cheaper, but not this stuff they want in the mac pro.
excalibur313
Jun 8, 07:33 PM
How bout Best Buy?
That is my question exactly too! I have these gift certificates from them burning a hole in my pocket. I called today and the woman said she wasn't sure when they would find out launch information about that but she put me on a list to call when she did find out.
Has anyone else heard anything? What have they done for previous iphone launches?
That is my question exactly too! I have these gift certificates from them burning a hole in my pocket. I called today and the woman said she wasn't sure when they would find out launch information about that but she put me on a list to call when she did find out.
Has anyone else heard anything? What have they done for previous iphone launches?
No comments:
Post a Comment