relimw
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
Hehe, everybody else cited you, I suppose I will as well.
It's not that those cores won't be used. The average Joe user won't need them, it won't help you type letters any faster, and it'll do very little to help you websurf any faster (unless people keep putting bloat-ware browsers out there).
What it will help with, is people using HPC apps (BLAST comes to mind), or multi-threaded apps.
Hehe, everybody else cited you, I suppose I will as well.
It's not that those cores won't be used. The average Joe user won't need them, it won't help you type letters any faster, and it'll do very little to help you websurf any faster (unless people keep putting bloat-ware browsers out there).
What it will help with, is people using HPC apps (BLAST comes to mind), or multi-threaded apps.
heisetax
Aug 5, 11:28 PM
Are you "meant" to keep it under your desk? Who says? I had my PowerMac on the desk until I sold it (I will be getting a Mac Pro and I hate to put it on my desk if it's meant to go under it!)
Try your tower below your chair. From there you could point a remote at the correct location. The floor seems like a good place to me. Like you I have mine on my table behind my 30" display. This leaves the computer in an easy to reach place, but it is still out of the way.
Bill the TaxMan
Try your tower below your chair. From there you could point a remote at the correct location. The floor seems like a good place to me. Like you I have mine on my table behind my 30" display. This leaves the computer in an easy to reach place, but it is still out of the way.
Bill the TaxMan
WiiDSmoker
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
The iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone in the market, so not surprising..
Your opinion. Not fact.
Your opinion. Not fact.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 12:26 PM
CDMA is the only practical option for those of us who travel.
Travel within US perhaps. Still, you might be correct, even though I have seen posts that claims the opposite. Vz reluctance to give GSM a chance is big roadblock for you guys to get decent roaming. I use my european triband (900,1800,1900) when I fly over. I spend about 2 months per year in US. So far I havent had any problems getting connection. OK, you have some dropped calls when you drive in less populated areas. But that is reallly nothing to get upset about. Better to just redial the number than popping a vein in vain. :p
Still, life would be so much simpler for you if you at least tried to agree on one standard within your own country. Free enterprise has few, but really really annoying drawbacks.
Travel within US perhaps. Still, you might be correct, even though I have seen posts that claims the opposite. Vz reluctance to give GSM a chance is big roadblock for you guys to get decent roaming. I use my european triband (900,1800,1900) when I fly over. I spend about 2 months per year in US. So far I havent had any problems getting connection. OK, you have some dropped calls when you drive in less populated areas. But that is reallly nothing to get upset about. Better to just redial the number than popping a vein in vain. :p
Still, life would be so much simpler for you if you at least tried to agree on one standard within your own country. Free enterprise has few, but really really annoying drawbacks.
ghostlyorb
Mar 22, 08:10 PM
So they finally are matching the iPad's pricing.. too bad they don't offer the same functionality...
shelterpaw
Aug 17, 01:05 AM
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate. Don't forget that these aps were recently ported to the Intel platform. we may see optimizations and speed improvements over time. Also, they only ran one test in FCP, they should have run many more.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate. Don't forget that these aps were recently ported to the Intel platform. we may see optimizations and speed improvements over time. Also, they only ran one test in FCP, they should have run many more.
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.
Evangelion
Aug 12, 03:51 AM
Is it possible for Apple to release a phone sold in their stores that would work on all networks? Or have several versions of the phone that will work for Verizon, Cingular...
I'll never be ceased at just how retarded the phone-system is outside Finland (or Scandinavia). I just buy a phone, and I get a SIM-card, and boom, it just works. I can replace the SIM at will, and it will just work. No hassle, no worries that "but this phone wotn work with that operator!". Unsatisfied with your current operator? It takes maybe ten minutes to get a new operator, and you get to keep your old number, AND your phone (it is YOUR phone, after all!).
I think that the scheme where the phones are tied to certain operator is just plain retarded. This is a perfect example as to why that is so. And I'm REALLY surprised that you folks (the rest of the world that is) hasn't seen the light on this issue. You just happily accept a scheme that limits choice and competition.
I'll never be ceased at just how retarded the phone-system is outside Finland (or Scandinavia). I just buy a phone, and I get a SIM-card, and boom, it just works. I can replace the SIM at will, and it will just work. No hassle, no worries that "but this phone wotn work with that operator!". Unsatisfied with your current operator? It takes maybe ten minutes to get a new operator, and you get to keep your old number, AND your phone (it is YOUR phone, after all!).
I think that the scheme where the phones are tied to certain operator is just plain retarded. This is a perfect example as to why that is so. And I'm REALLY surprised that you folks (the rest of the world that is) hasn't seen the light on this issue. You just happily accept a scheme that limits choice and competition.
AidenShaw
Aug 23, 08:15 AM
My Quad G5 is dead silent all the time. Those noisy Quads should have been sent off for repair. I was told the Quad in the Santa Clara Apple Store was also very loud. That is not normal. Properly serviced they run very silent.
dbA ? A system with 9 fans isn't going to be silent, period.
Are your systems in a room with a lot of ambient noise? (A wind-tunnel G4 sounds quiet at Best Buy, yet in my den I can clearly hear the fluid-bearing drive in my Yonah dual... ;) )
dbA ? A system with 9 fans isn't going to be silent, period.
Are your systems in a room with a lot of ambient noise? (A wind-tunnel G4 sounds quiet at Best Buy, yet in my den I can clearly hear the fluid-bearing drive in my Yonah dual... ;) )
pdpfilms
Aug 11, 10:37 AM
"...Earlier than some may be expecting"??
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
medelman
Apr 7, 10:34 PM
I wonder if what was happening is that they would stop selling the ipads when they had sold enough extended warranties, cases, etc for that day rather then continuing to sell their ipad stock
If other customers had come in and bought and ipad after the quota was met, then any accessories that they purchased wouldn't count toward what they needed to get their "gold star" for the day.
Serves them right. Bastards. It's amazing how easily they sucker people into buying an $80 hdmi cable when they can get a higher quality cable from monoprice for less then five bucks.
If other customers had come in and bought and ipad after the quota was met, then any accessories that they purchased wouldn't count toward what they needed to get their "gold star" for the day.
Serves them right. Bastards. It's amazing how easily they sucker people into buying an $80 hdmi cable when they can get a higher quality cable from monoprice for less then five bucks.
BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 09:19 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:41 PM
Ridiculous. Mac OS X and iOS can never merge because their UI paradigms are completely different. Why don't people understand this?
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
citizenzen
Apr 28, 04:05 PM
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.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.
Reach9
Apr 11, 05:22 PM
Ah, so most of the stuff on Android is "better" only because it's on a bigger screen? :rolleyes:
So if Apple came out with a 6" iPhone, that would make it better than Android, right?
And the navigation app I purchased houses all the map data on the device and doesn't rely on a data connection to operate. Unlike Android's stock navigation.
Um, how about the entire OS?
There are also people (like me) who prefer not to carry something the size of an old-school Palm Pilot in their pocket.
Clearly you missed out how Multitasking, and Notification system is better. And yes, size does matter. If Apple came out with a 4" phone it would be amazing, but still wouldn't be better than Android unless they fix issues like notification system.
Good for you, i like the fact that I don't have to buy an expensive app for something which comes free on another device. But here's the deal, for argument sake i didn't count apps from the App Store or Android App Store. So the stock application Maps on the iPhone is completely premature compared to the Google navigation on an Android.
You're just proving my point.
Right Android based their OS from iOS. But they have surpassed iOS in regards to usability as a smartphone.
When Steve Jobs announced iOS in 07, he said that the OS was 5 years ahead of it's time. Well, he definitely proved it, but 4 years later there are amazing OS around, definitely isn't ahead of its time anymore.
I believe not all the Android phones are massive, you don't have to generalize. The following picture should make things clear:
http://4ucellphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone-4-samsung-galaxy-s-htc-desire-screen-size-compare-580x365.jpg
iPhone 4. Samsung Galaxy S. HTC Desire.
I think the point you're missing is that i can also enjoy these features you're stating with my iPod Touch, and i'll still be able to enjoy the true smartphones, the Android phones.
Anyway, this is my own opinion, you can keep your fanboy perspective as well. Like i said, we don't have to agree.
Who knows? Maybe iOS 5 and iPhone 5 will surprise us all (in a good way). And then i won't be switching.
So if Apple came out with a 6" iPhone, that would make it better than Android, right?
And the navigation app I purchased houses all the map data on the device and doesn't rely on a data connection to operate. Unlike Android's stock navigation.
Um, how about the entire OS?
There are also people (like me) who prefer not to carry something the size of an old-school Palm Pilot in their pocket.
Clearly you missed out how Multitasking, and Notification system is better. And yes, size does matter. If Apple came out with a 4" phone it would be amazing, but still wouldn't be better than Android unless they fix issues like notification system.
Good for you, i like the fact that I don't have to buy an expensive app for something which comes free on another device. But here's the deal, for argument sake i didn't count apps from the App Store or Android App Store. So the stock application Maps on the iPhone is completely premature compared to the Google navigation on an Android.
You're just proving my point.
Right Android based their OS from iOS. But they have surpassed iOS in regards to usability as a smartphone.
When Steve Jobs announced iOS in 07, he said that the OS was 5 years ahead of it's time. Well, he definitely proved it, but 4 years later there are amazing OS around, definitely isn't ahead of its time anymore.
I believe not all the Android phones are massive, you don't have to generalize. The following picture should make things clear:
http://4ucellphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone-4-samsung-galaxy-s-htc-desire-screen-size-compare-580x365.jpg
iPhone 4. Samsung Galaxy S. HTC Desire.
I think the point you're missing is that i can also enjoy these features you're stating with my iPod Touch, and i'll still be able to enjoy the true smartphones, the Android phones.
Anyway, this is my own opinion, you can keep your fanboy perspective as well. Like i said, we don't have to agree.
Who knows? Maybe iOS 5 and iPhone 5 will surprise us all (in a good way). And then i won't be switching.
Sydde
Mar 19, 05:46 PM
It's a known fact the Obama Administration monitors MacRumors forums for a populist read on issues... ;) Yes I agree business is in charge colored by perceived economic end-results.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, there will be no change. As long as it costs millions to get elected, business will continue to set policy, maintain the farce of two different parties and basically run the country, a situation I think the OP of this thread is in favour of.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, there will be no change. As long as it costs millions to get elected, business will continue to set policy, maintain the farce of two different parties and basically run the country, a situation I think the OP of this thread is in favour of.
Nuck81
Dec 7, 04:20 PM
So another patch for today adding mechanical damage. Must have the newest firmware...
only online so far. It was a good fix, cuts down on the bumper cars in certain rooms...
only online so far. It was a good fix, cuts down on the bumper cars in certain rooms...
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 12:25 PM
Maybe the certificate is legitimate, but I think the original short form would have been more convincing. I like Obama, but I loathe his extreme liberalism.
What does his so-called liberalism have to do with his birth certificate?
What does his so-called liberalism have to do with his birth certificate?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 10:07 AM
Fair point. Then again, if one makes the assumption that Heaven is full of people with ideas like yours, I'd rather stay here or in Hell. Which is basically the same thing anyway. :p
After a politician died, he met St. Peter at the pearly gates. "We don't quite know what to do with you guys," the first pope admitted. "I'll tell ya what. You hang around heaven for few days before you ride the elevator to hell." Then you come back and tell me where you prefer to stay."
The politician hops on the elevator, presses the "basement" button, and before you know it, the elevator doors open to reveal a fantastic party. Satan greets the politician warmly, throws his arm around him, invites him to mingle."
After the bash, the party, the politician goes back to heaven. "Pete, I really enjoyed the harps, the singing angels, and lounging around on the clouds. But I think I prefer hell."
"That's all right. It's up to you."
Back to the elevator the politician goes, so it'll take him to hell where the Devil is is waiting for him. "What! I don't understand. Last time, everybody was having lots of fun. Now you guys are in agony."
"Sir," the Devil replies, last time we were campaigning. This time, you voted for us."
After a politician died, he met St. Peter at the pearly gates. "We don't quite know what to do with you guys," the first pope admitted. "I'll tell ya what. You hang around heaven for few days before you ride the elevator to hell." Then you come back and tell me where you prefer to stay."
The politician hops on the elevator, presses the "basement" button, and before you know it, the elevator doors open to reveal a fantastic party. Satan greets the politician warmly, throws his arm around him, invites him to mingle."
After the bash, the party, the politician goes back to heaven. "Pete, I really enjoyed the harps, the singing angels, and lounging around on the clouds. But I think I prefer hell."
"That's all right. It's up to you."
Back to the elevator the politician goes, so it'll take him to hell where the Devil is is waiting for him. "What! I don't understand. Last time, everybody was having lots of fun. Now you guys are in agony."
"Sir," the Devil replies, last time we were campaigning. This time, you voted for us."
Michael73
Apr 11, 11:28 AM
Hopefully the additional wait time will result in a more revolutionary than evolutionary device.
UK-MacAddict
Apr 11, 05:12 PM
If this is true I think Apple are looking to slot yearly iPhone releases into January since the month has been clear for them since they pulled out of Macworld.
If this is the case then I'll probably sell my black iPhone 4 and get the white iPhone 4 if they really do release it this spring. I wanted the white when they came out and if iPhone 5 is being delayed getting the white will be like a new phone anyways :D
Also I dont think any iPhone will have 4G until 2013 at the earliest. Many countries dont have it up and running yet and I cant seeing Apple making one specifically for the US market. I live in the UK and the networks wont even be able to start bidding for the technology until early 2012 with devices actually showing up until 2013. So I think Apple will wait until its biggest markets for the iPhone catch up before anything is released.
If this is the case then I'll probably sell my black iPhone 4 and get the white iPhone 4 if they really do release it this spring. I wanted the white when they came out and if iPhone 5 is being delayed getting the white will be like a new phone anyways :D
Also I dont think any iPhone will have 4G until 2013 at the earliest. Many countries dont have it up and running yet and I cant seeing Apple making one specifically for the US market. I live in the UK and the networks wont even be able to start bidding for the technology until early 2012 with devices actually showing up until 2013. So I think Apple will wait until its biggest markets for the iPhone catch up before anything is released.
SuperCachetes
Mar 5, 11:39 AM
Quite true about 'continuation', but economic models probably require that we do, in order to keep the pyramid growing at the base.
Not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China.
I seriously doubt that would be a legitimate complaint against homosexuality, much less color it as "immoral."
Nevertheless, I know several young, married (straight), professional women who have decided not ever to have children. I can't really identify with that, but it's their choice. Should I tell them they are ****ing up our economic future? :eek:
Not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China.
I seriously doubt that would be a legitimate complaint against homosexuality, much less color it as "immoral."
Nevertheless, I know several young, married (straight), professional women who have decided not ever to have children. I can't really identify with that, but it's their choice. Should I tell them they are ****ing up our economic future? :eek:
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
Post a Comment