TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 02:50 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips.
The cores for all the "Core 2" processors are all basically the same, but the packaging is different. Using Xeon 5100 in the Mac Pro makes sense because they are going to want to use dual-cpu (quad core) configurations. Although this may not seem of much importance, the Xeon will cost a lot more, which is an issue.
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Oh.... I think the recently introduced edu-iMac will keep its current Core Duo (Yonah) processor after the full iMac has been upgraded to Core 2 Duo. Another thing..... I think the iMac will get Meroms, not Conroes so that Apple doesn't have to change the socket. (Which also implies that the top CPU speed we're going to see in the iMac will be 2.33GHz, leaving a space for faster (2.4GHz to 2.93GHz) in a new enclosure. :cool:
The cores for all the "Core 2" processors are all basically the same, but the packaging is different. Using Xeon 5100 in the Mac Pro makes sense because they are going to want to use dual-cpu (quad core) configurations. Although this may not seem of much importance, the Xeon will cost a lot more, which is an issue.
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Oh.... I think the recently introduced edu-iMac will keep its current Core Duo (Yonah) processor after the full iMac has been upgraded to Core 2 Duo. Another thing..... I think the iMac will get Meroms, not Conroes so that Apple doesn't have to change the socket. (Which also implies that the top CPU speed we're going to see in the iMac will be 2.33GHz, leaving a space for faster (2.4GHz to 2.93GHz) in a new enclosure. :cool:
more...
mikethebigo
Apr 8, 10:46 PM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
ehoui
Apr 27, 06:47 PM
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
Piggie
Apr 10, 04:46 AM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
more...
bartelby
Mar 12, 03:47 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
:eek:
That's insane!
:eek:
That's insane!
more...
recursivejon
Mar 20, 02:23 PM
If this is true (transfer of the music without DRM to be added by iTunes), then couldn't anyone with a bit of networking knowledge just pipe the packets into a file when they purchase something from the store using iTunes?
more...
dudemac
Mar 20, 05:41 AM
It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem. There are many issues that fall under this and for what seems a rather well reasoned argument it fails because of this. So ignoring your first statement, you are correct in stating that laws are used to keep order in society and they should serve the interest and rights of the people. As soon as the laws no longer server this purpose there will be tyranny. Freedom of the people should be the most important thing. If you look at your life today and ask the question am I really free, the answer might scare you. Just look how much control is exerted over you life before you even get to make one decision. And when this control is coming from corporate interests it makes you wonder why and how people let this happen. Corporate wellness should never super seed the well being of the the people or trample the freedom of the people. As soon as you take away the ability to protest and to sometimes break the laws to effect change you have crippled society. And this kind of thinking starts "real" wars.
As for does this break laws, yes, but to better understand it is more like speeding than say a conspiracy to pirate music. It has been said many times that you still have to pay for the music, you just get something that is free of control. Now if you where running a p2p out of you house or directly selling it this might be a problem(but it would be no different than doing this with ripped CD's). However most of us just want to be able to play this on non apple players. Or in my case at work where I can not log into my account.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem. There are many issues that fall under this and for what seems a rather well reasoned argument it fails because of this. So ignoring your first statement, you are correct in stating that laws are used to keep order in society and they should serve the interest and rights of the people. As soon as the laws no longer server this purpose there will be tyranny. Freedom of the people should be the most important thing. If you look at your life today and ask the question am I really free, the answer might scare you. Just look how much control is exerted over you life before you even get to make one decision. And when this control is coming from corporate interests it makes you wonder why and how people let this happen. Corporate wellness should never super seed the well being of the the people or trample the freedom of the people. As soon as you take away the ability to protest and to sometimes break the laws to effect change you have crippled society. And this kind of thinking starts "real" wars.
As for does this break laws, yes, but to better understand it is more like speeding than say a conspiracy to pirate music. It has been said many times that you still have to pay for the music, you just get something that is free of control. Now if you where running a p2p out of you house or directly selling it this might be a problem(but it would be no different than doing this with ripped CD's). However most of us just want to be able to play this on non apple players. Or in my case at work where I can not log into my account.
more...
javajedi
Oct 9, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok,
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
How incredibly ignorant. You know as well as everyone else here that this is complete ************. What really pisses me of is when people with agendas put spin on an issue. This is exactly what you are doing. Your remark is equally as arrogant as saying "PC's are faster and nobody will change my mind because they boot in 10 seconds in Windows XP and the Mac takes over a minute."
This attitude does not help Apple, and it does nothing but hurt the Mac community. You know folks it's interesting when you look back to the early to mid 90's at all the Windows bigots... you know those people who we tried to show them something intresting, something different, and something cool... the Macintosh, and they are entirely closed minded and extremely aggrogant. No matter how what you did, said, or anything else mattered. I'm seeing the exact same thing here, and it's discusting.
I would suggest you �Think Different.�..
Ok,
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
How incredibly ignorant. You know as well as everyone else here that this is complete ************. What really pisses me of is when people with agendas put spin on an issue. This is exactly what you are doing. Your remark is equally as arrogant as saying "PC's are faster and nobody will change my mind because they boot in 10 seconds in Windows XP and the Mac takes over a minute."
This attitude does not help Apple, and it does nothing but hurt the Mac community. You know folks it's interesting when you look back to the early to mid 90's at all the Windows bigots... you know those people who we tried to show them something intresting, something different, and something cool... the Macintosh, and they are entirely closed minded and extremely aggrogant. No matter how what you did, said, or anything else mattered. I'm seeing the exact same thing here, and it's discusting.
I would suggest you �Think Different.�..
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:15 PM
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
CaoCao
Mar 25, 11:17 PM
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
more...
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:57 PM
Probably, but it's speculation.
Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.
Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.
more...
skunk
Mar 26, 10:04 AM
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
Married before receiving Holy Orders
It was within canon law, and still is, for priests to have once been married before receiving Holy Orders. In the Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, it is within canon law to be a priest and married (but one may not marry after ordination).
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.[2][3] Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[4]
Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. Wrote a decree in 385, stating that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great.
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[5]
Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was selected to be pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. His daughter was carried off, raped, and murdered by former antipope Anastasius's brother, Eleutherius. Her mother was also killed by Eleutherius.
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests.[7]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.[8]
Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last pope to have been married.[9]
Sexually active before receiving Holy Orders
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.[10]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.[11] According to the 1911 Encyclop�dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of his children".[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.[15][16]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.[17]
Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders
Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a "sodomite covered with shameful ulcers."[19]
Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[22][23]
Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.[24]
Sexually active during their pontificate
Along with other complaints, the activities of the popes between 1458 to 1565 helped encourage the Protestant Reformation.
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[27]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis:[28] "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[29] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[30] He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."[38] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest", accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Pope Gregory VI.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)
Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate
Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.[42]
Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",[43] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[44] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.
Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[45]
Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[46] According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
Married before receiving Holy Orders
It was within canon law, and still is, for priests to have once been married before receiving Holy Orders. In the Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, it is within canon law to be a priest and married (but one may not marry after ordination).
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.[2][3] Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[4]
Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. Wrote a decree in 385, stating that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great.
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[5]
Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was selected to be pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. His daughter was carried off, raped, and murdered by former antipope Anastasius's brother, Eleutherius. Her mother was also killed by Eleutherius.
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests.[7]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.[8]
Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last pope to have been married.[9]
Sexually active before receiving Holy Orders
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.[10]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.[11] According to the 1911 Encyclop�dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of his children".[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.[15][16]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.[17]
Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders
Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a "sodomite covered with shameful ulcers."[19]
Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[22][23]
Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.[24]
Sexually active during their pontificate
Along with other complaints, the activities of the popes between 1458 to 1565 helped encourage the Protestant Reformation.
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[27]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis:[28] "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[29] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[30] He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."[38] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest", accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Pope Gregory VI.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)
Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate
Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.[42]
Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",[43] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[44] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.
Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[45]
Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[46] According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
more...
sinsin07
Apr 9, 07:43 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
Washington#39;s Taylor Romar
Washington#39;s Taylor Romar
more...
Washington#39;s Taylor Romar
Taylor Corley es una bella
with 723 and Taylor Embree
more...
more...
more...
more...
more...
blackburn
Apr 9, 04:29 PM
Real gamers won't use apple gear (for gaming at least). I don't really like the online game craze. You can't borrow games from friends or even trade them (yeah more profit for the industry).
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
more...
tigress666
Apr 10, 01:00 PM
If you are going to buy something to mainly play games on when you are out of the house which one are you going to buy.
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 10:37 PM
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ????????
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
FreeState
Mar 26, 02:03 AM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
more...
johnnyturbouk
Apr 9, 04:32 PM
i love basic gaming on my iphone/ipad
byt nintendo really pushed the boundaries with the wii..
byt nintendo really pushed the boundaries with the wii..
Daveoc64
Mar 13, 08:44 AM
Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
more...
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:36 AM
AT&T already gets $50 I'll be damned if I pay anymore for the 1 time a month I actuly need to pull up a full web page due to flash. Yes they get $50 for data, $30 for my unlimited plan (I use ~1gb) and $20 for unlimited texts which is simply insanely small amounts of data.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
Well no not quite. Over in the UK I laughed at AT&Ts inability to get the ball rolling on MMS. But if you sign a contract you stick to it. It couldn't be any simpler.
O2 charge extra for tethering, guess what? I voted with my wallet and didn't pay it.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
Well no not quite. Over in the UK I laughed at AT&Ts inability to get the ball rolling on MMS. But if you sign a contract you stick to it. It couldn't be any simpler.
O2 charge extra for tethering, guess what? I voted with my wallet and didn't pay it.
more...
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:23 PM
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
more...
JackSYi
Jul 11, 11:41 PM
I like Appleinsider, and I believe that they are going to be right. But since this is all speculation at this point, anything can happen. Either way Mac users win.
more...
