stefman
Nov 28, 09:46 PM
What kind of ridiculous Mafia tactics are those? This is so stupid, what if I don't buy a single Universal song? Why should they get any money?
:mad:
:mad:
buffalo
Aug 11, 11:11 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...
.jpg "Sony Ericsson Xperia X8 is")
deedas
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
I didn't go through all the pages of replies, but in case some one hasn't corrected them yet, the bus speed of the 13" is 1066mhz.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 9, 04:11 PM
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
X2468
Mar 26, 01:39 PM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
It's this mentality that makes me smile.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
It's this mentality that makes me smile.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
MyDesktopBroke
Mar 22, 03:22 PM
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is any more. It started by claiming Obama was elected in part due to being an anti-war candidate, but that was refuted since he openly advocated escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is multiple interviews.
Now it seems to be about attacking without congressional approval, but I think he has a 30 day window in which to act (http://www.google.com/search?q=30+days+to+attack+without+congressional+approval&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) before that becomes a legal issue.
Is it about bias coverage? DailyKos is highlighting stories like (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance) this (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85509/the-case-against-our-attack-libya), HuffPo has a column about Obama's "Imperial Presidency (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/libya-and-obamas-embrace_b_839046.html)." Yahoo's already covering the cost of the Libya mission, and MSNBC's article states that "Obama�s stance is striking: not only hasn�t he addressed the question of congressional authorization, but acting without it appears to be at odds with what he stood for when he ran for president (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42201792/ns/politics/)."
Now it seems to be about attacking without congressional approval, but I think he has a 30 day window in which to act (http://www.google.com/search?q=30+days+to+attack+without+congressional+approval&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) before that becomes a legal issue.
Is it about bias coverage? DailyKos is highlighting stories like (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance) this (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85509/the-case-against-our-attack-libya), HuffPo has a column about Obama's "Imperial Presidency (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/libya-and-obamas-embrace_b_839046.html)." Yahoo's already covering the cost of the Libya mission, and MSNBC's article states that "Obama�s stance is striking: not only hasn�t he addressed the question of congressional authorization, but acting without it appears to be at odds with what he stood for when he ran for president (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42201792/ns/politics/)."
Sydde
Mar 24, 01:28 PM
And the vast majority of WASPs are racists? Got it.
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
WildPalms
Jul 27, 05:50 PM
Yay! Chips that don't suck and are fast! (I hate P4s)
Ironic, isnt it? Core Duo's are based on Pentium 3 architecture.
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
Get a golden cats eye and who cares about the rest! ;);)
Ironic, isnt it? Core Duo's are based on Pentium 3 architecture.
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
Get a golden cats eye and who cares about the rest! ;);)
Notaclone
Apr 27, 09:35 AM
Am I the only person disappointed to find my iPhone is NOT tracking me? I download the App David Pogue posted on NYT and it didn't work. My iPhone's too old! I wish the damn thing would just die already, but since every Mac I've bought since 1989* still works, what are the odds? Someone steal my iPhone, PLEASE!
*1985's Mac had a coca-cola spilled in it. That can destroy anything.
*1985's Mac had a coca-cola spilled in it. That can destroy anything.
aohus
Apr 19, 03:08 PM
Lol if apple was a religion it would have more extremists than Islam, Judaism, and Christianity combined! :eek:
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
merk850
Jul 28, 05:23 PM
I respectfully disagree. I say take it back and be ready for a much faster iMac Core 2 Duo. You want the latest, take it back. It won't be the latest for many more weeks. Core 2 Duo will be the latest for two more years.
I appreciate the thoughts on my quandry whether or not to return my 20 " iMac and purchase after the WWDC. Of course my decision is not any easier with one vote for and one vote against.
Thanks Grokgod and Multimedia for the thoughts...
I appreciate the thoughts on my quandry whether or not to return my 20 " iMac and purchase after the WWDC. Of course my decision is not any easier with one vote for and one vote against.
Thanks Grokgod and Multimedia for the thoughts...
azzurri000
Sep 19, 12:18 AM
But it'd still be sweet to get some updates. Keeps me feeling all warm and fuzzy :)
I feel like that whenever a new design makes an arrival! It's an awesome feeling :) Just wish I could share it more in the real world :(
I feel like that whenever a new design makes an arrival! It's an awesome feeling :) Just wish I could share it more in the real world :(
gnasher729
Aug 17, 12:59 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.
No, you only need software that doesn't think multiple processors = two processors. Early versions of Handbrake used only two processors, new version uses four. Photoshop will use as many processors as there are. Other applications will follow.
No, you only need software that doesn't think multiple processors = two processors. Early versions of Handbrake used only two processors, new version uses four. Photoshop will use as many processors as there are. Other applications will follow.
kingconsulting
Nov 28, 07:39 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
What your saying is totally obsurd. Who's fault is it the record companies are getting "squeezed"? Apple makes computers that can play the music also. Maybe they record companies should get a cut of that also?
The record companies are the ones who want something for nothing!
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
What your saying is totally obsurd. Who's fault is it the record companies are getting "squeezed"? Apple makes computers that can play the music also. Maybe they record companies should get a cut of that also?
The record companies are the ones who want something for nothing!
shawnce
Aug 18, 02:02 AM
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.
Mac OS X is built on top of a LOT of existing code from inside Apple and outside Apple.
You may want to review the lineage of Mac OS X in the history of unix (http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#21).
Anyway aspects of Mac OS X are far far older then Windows (not that that is a bad thing) and aspects of Mac OS X are more modern/recent then what Windows currently has (of course Windows has several things more modern then Mac OS X).
Mac OS X is built on top of a LOT of existing code from inside Apple and outside Apple.
You may want to review the lineage of Mac OS X in the history of unix (http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#21).
Anyway aspects of Mac OS X are far far older then Windows (not that that is a bad thing) and aspects of Mac OS X are more modern/recent then what Windows currently has (of course Windows has several things more modern then Mac OS X).
Dunepilot
Nov 29, 10:45 AM
No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
I suspect you may be trolling, but this is the most moronic statement I've seen on a board for some time now.
If you actually knew anything about the ethos of MacRumors and its forums, you'd know that people who post here are quite vehemently anti-piracy. What's the betting you actually work for Universal or Microsoft and are being paid to post this nonsense? Pretty likely, I'd say.
Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
I suspect you may be trolling, but this is the most moronic statement I've seen on a board for some time now.
If you actually knew anything about the ethos of MacRumors and its forums, you'd know that people who post here are quite vehemently anti-piracy. What's the betting you actually work for Universal or Microsoft and are being paid to post this nonsense? Pretty likely, I'd say.
Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:08 PM
Of course, the problem with waiting until Paris for consumer upgrades like MacBook is that Apple will entirely miss the educational buying season, losing one of the largest markets for its consumer products...
Why would Apple miss the educational buying season? They just released a brand new educational iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060712164540.shtml) this month. eMacs don't need or want the latest and greatest, fastest chips, they need the most bang for their buck. I believe that the $899 educational iMac fits that description to the letter.
Why would Apple miss the educational buying season? They just released a brand new educational iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060712164540.shtml) this month. eMacs don't need or want the latest and greatest, fastest chips, they need the most bang for their buck. I believe that the $899 educational iMac fits that description to the letter.
blahblah100
Apr 27, 09:46 AM
There aren't any concerns, but since the media hyped this up so much, they had to address it. Now they have. Should be the end of the story. But it won't be since there are anti-Apple folks who will push to keep this story alive as long as they can until the next Apple-gate story gets created.
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
MrSmith
Mar 25, 10:59 PM
Since Launchpad is obviously considered by Apple to be the selling point of Lion, I think I'll wait until there's actually something to spend money on.
ergle2
Sep 21, 03:17 PM
I had the pleasure of meeting Jef Raskin at his home in Pacifica a year before he passed away. He loved to play musical instruments and performed a short recital on his piano. Later that evening, after showing his Apple I in a wooden box, he encouraged me to read his book The Humane Interface and let him know what I thought about it. Sadly, I wasn't able to do that in time. But the conversation we had made it clear that he was not a fan of Steve Jobs. They both had strong opinions on various aspects of UI design. Even though I rather like OS X, Raskin politely argued against the inefficiencies of that design.
It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.
It doesn't surprise me he was no fan of Jobs, especially given the history of the original Mac. From people I know who've worked with Jobs, he's not always easy to get along with.
From what I've read, the Mac was fundamentally quite different from Raskin's original vision after Jobs took over the project, though some of his ideas were obviously incorporated into it. (I believe Raskin wanted to go with the cheaper but obviously slower 6809).
His book's been one I've meant to track down for some time now. You know how it is, so many things to do/see...
The Archy interface modelled on his concepts is quite interesting, too.
I was sorry when we lost Jef, I feel he was one of those people striving to make the world a better place.
What did you think of The Humane Design?
It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.
It doesn't surprise me he was no fan of Jobs, especially given the history of the original Mac. From people I know who've worked with Jobs, he's not always easy to get along with.
From what I've read, the Mac was fundamentally quite different from Raskin's original vision after Jobs took over the project, though some of his ideas were obviously incorporated into it. (I believe Raskin wanted to go with the cheaper but obviously slower 6809).
His book's been one I've meant to track down for some time now. You know how it is, so many things to do/see...
The Archy interface modelled on his concepts is quite interesting, too.
I was sorry when we lost Jef, I feel he was one of those people striving to make the world a better place.
What did you think of The Humane Design?
ciTiger
Apr 11, 07:53 AM
I hope there are big improvements...
yac_moda
Jul 20, 10:25 PM
I just applied to a job at MS, its not the first time either last time they emailed me and asked for more information concerning the position -- had to answer questions on line :eek: :mad: :p
This time I had to create a new profile though and in the profile where the resume was everything worked fine ACCEPT !!!
I could not enter ANY text in the field for the RESUME !!
I could only put 0 text in the RESUME FIELD !
So I submitted for the job, a resume name, but NO resume !!!!!!!
That's .NET technology for you ...
Don't you LOVE Microsoft ;) :D
This time I had to create a new profile though and in the profile where the resume was everything worked fine ACCEPT !!!
I could not enter ANY text in the field for the RESUME !!
I could only put 0 text in the RESUME FIELD !
So I submitted for the job, a resume name, but NO resume !!!!!!!
That's .NET technology for you ...
Don't you LOVE Microsoft ;) :D
NAG
Mar 31, 03:24 PM
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
If early access to the code is so unimportant then why the big fuss over cutting corners with Honeycomb to get it on the Xoom? Why not delay the Xoom or put Gingerbread on it and update it later?
Pretending that getting a jump on the market by weeks isn't enough to make or break you in the Android market isn't going to work. Having early access only doesn't matter if the features in the update are irrelevant (which they are for the feature phone makers who pretty much ignore any software updates anyway) or they're the life blood of the device (usually the flagship device of the month).
If early access to the code is so unimportant then why the big fuss over cutting corners with Honeycomb to get it on the Xoom? Why not delay the Xoom or put Gingerbread on it and update it later?
Pretending that getting a jump on the market by weeks isn't enough to make or break you in the Android market isn't going to work. Having early access only doesn't matter if the features in the update are irrelevant (which they are for the feature phone makers who pretty much ignore any software updates anyway) or they're the life blood of the device (usually the flagship device of the month).
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?