r.j.s
May 2, 09:20 AM
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
So very true, zip files have been carriers for malware and viruses for years.
That guy needs his head examined.
So very true, zip files have been carriers for malware and viruses for years.
mahonmeister
Oct 25, 10:51 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
And you shall continue to enjoy it. Like Arn has stated, this likely isn't replacing any current configurations, just adding to them.
This seems really exciting. All these cores are gonna pump out some serious power. Now if they could just mash together that processor that IBM made at like 50GHz (I think they cooled it with dry ice or something) with a multi core processor they'd have something! Bring it.
And you shall continue to enjoy it. Like Arn has stated, this likely isn't replacing any current configurations, just adding to them.
This seems really exciting. All these cores are gonna pump out some serious power. Now if they could just mash together that processor that IBM made at like 50GHz (I think they cooled it with dry ice or something) with a multi core processor they'd have something! Bring it.
Snowy_River
Mar 19, 01:30 AM
...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
rasmasyean
Apr 23, 03:16 AM
sorry but you are wrong ... we do not tell soldiers they are fighting for God or that there is anything such as being a martyr
nice try though :rolleyes:
And that's why its so hard for "Atheists" to "come out" in the military, eh? Look past the surface and the exact words (heaven, prayers, freedom, hero...use whatever words you want) and the concept is still the same. Even the CIA told the Afghans during the cold war that they will "go to god" if they die fighting the Russians. It's funny when you see some white dude surrounded by turbaned ppl saying this in those old videos. Believe what you want but in a sense, we do "brainwash" our troops. And to good effect, because it makes them do their job willingly and better. And it gives them comfort when they know they will die taking a bullet for oil.
nice try though :rolleyes:
And that's why its so hard for "Atheists" to "come out" in the military, eh? Look past the surface and the exact words (heaven, prayers, freedom, hero...use whatever words you want) and the concept is still the same. Even the CIA told the Afghans during the cold war that they will "go to god" if they die fighting the Russians. It's funny when you see some white dude surrounded by turbaned ppl saying this in those old videos. Believe what you want but in a sense, we do "brainwash" our troops. And to good effect, because it makes them do their job willingly and better. And it gives them comfort when they know they will die taking a bullet for oil.
sdunlapa
Oct 7, 09:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)
Wait a minute, windows mobile is on multiple phones. Why won't they take over iPhone's market share? Everything is always so pie in the sky. I remember when the iPhone was supposed to be a disaster and a sure failure. Something sure went wrong there.
Wait a minute, windows mobile is on multiple phones. Why won't they take over iPhone's market share? Everything is always so pie in the sky. I remember when the iPhone was supposed to be a disaster and a sure failure. Something sure went wrong there.
WalkingDED
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 06:33 PM
We will take your depleted uranium, and use it in our reactors. :D
But the U.S. is using this material to coat their artillery shells, the better to penetrate the Bad Guy's tanks and fortifications. :rolleyes:
But the U.S. is using this material to coat their artillery shells, the better to penetrate the Bad Guy's tanks and fortifications. :rolleyes:
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:43 AM
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
skunk
Mar 24, 07:14 PM
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said. Great description of their own behaviour, justified by a 2,500-year-old book of revisionist history. Anyway, what exactly was the relationship between David and Jonathan?
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said. Great description of their own behaviour, justified by a 2,500-year-old book of revisionist history. Anyway, what exactly was the relationship between David and Jonathan?
takao
Mar 13, 09:36 AM
I'm strongly in favour of nuclear.
The Fukushima power plants have stood up remarkably well given the magnitude of earthquake that hit them - and this is with 40 year old technology.
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
We mustn't let incidents of this type put us off implementing new reactors in the west - our future relies on abundant electrical power, and it really is the only viable route out of our reliance on fossil fuel.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Fukushima power plants have stood up remarkably well given the magnitude of earthquake that hit them - and this is with 40 year old technology.
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
We mustn't let incidents of this type put us off implementing new reactors in the west - our future relies on abundant electrical power, and it really is the only viable route out of our reliance on fossil fuel.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
munkery
May 3, 12:15 AM
Yes, and that prevents AntiVirus 2010 from successfully collecting credit card info too.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
ThunderSkunk
Apr 9, 02:22 AM
Not saying I am a real hard core gamer
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
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
CaoCao
Mar 26, 06:59 PM
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
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.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
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.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Lennholm
May 2, 04:08 PM
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
aswitcher
Jul 12, 06:33 AM
I really hope they are right about a the low cost single chip version so we can make good home multimedia center.
sparkleytone
Sep 20, 05:58 PM
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
I think you underestimate Apple's amazing sales pitch:
"Hey look! Free money!"
I think you underestimate Apple's amazing sales pitch:
"Hey look! Free money!"
QCassidy352
Jun 13, 06:23 PM
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year.
me too. It's been a lot worse recently. I always said AT&T was fine, but I'm being made to look like a liar. Why are we going in the wrong direction here?
me too. It's been a lot worse recently. I always said AT&T was fine, but I'm being made to look like a liar. Why are we going in the wrong direction here?
Red-red
Apr 9, 07:25 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:45 PM
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
SPUY767
Sep 26, 10:40 AM
Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:19 AM
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
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. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
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. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
Bigdaddyguido
Apr 13, 07:16 AM
This thread reads like a bunch of wanna-be's crying for attention. All this talk that real professionals will be disappointed. First off, if this is a conference for production professionals, and you weren't there, kinda already makes you sound like an also-ran. Not to say that every quality professional would be at one event, but if you are truly a professional, you'd know that pointless pontification about a product you've never seen and are judging based on a series of quotes from a one hour presentation isnt very respectable.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment