mdelvecchio
Mar 31, 03:28 PM
The question is what will Google do when they do publish the source code? All of these people pointing and laughing didn't read the article.
no, the question is: "Is this evil?" when google starts rejecting Facebook Android phones, or android versions using Bing and not Google...
thats the question.
no, the question is: "Is this evil?" when google starts rejecting Facebook Android phones, or android versions using Bing and not Google...
thats the question.
Evangelion
Sep 13, 01:10 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
Uh, last time I checked, Windows can take advantage of multiple cores just fine. Do you think that multithreading is some Black Magic that only MacOS can do? Hell, standard Linux from kernel.org can use 512 cores as we speak!
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
Uh, last time I checked, Windows can take advantage of multiple cores just fine. Do you think that multithreading is some Black Magic that only MacOS can do? Hell, standard Linux from kernel.org can use 512 cores as we speak!
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
3CCD
Aug 5, 08:28 PM
Microsoft execs have already gone on record recently saying that the rescheduled schedule for the revised schedule for scheduling the release of Vista now has a 20% chance of slipping.
The way thats written cracks me up, not sure if you were being funny or not with a sense of sarcasm (nothing against you). It just makes me think of how great Apple is.
The way thats written cracks me up, not sure if you were being funny or not with a sense of sarcasm (nothing against you). It just makes me think of how great Apple is.
shamino
Jul 21, 10:09 AM
Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already.
At the very least, Spotlight indexing won't kill the performance of my foreground app :cool:
At the very least, Spotlight indexing won't kill the performance of my foreground app :cool:
ThunderSkunk
Mar 26, 10:26 PM
I have a question.
I don't expect we'll be able to use iOS apps in OS X as early as Lion, and I understand based on the different chip architecture, it shouldn't be able to run at all...
buuuuut,
I distinctly remember watching that first keynote when they made their dev program available, and walked us through the iPhone dev tools, and seeing an OS X On-screen emulator, that would let you code and test your apps as you wrote them right there in OS X, with a big clumsy dot for a "fingertip"...
If they'll run in that emulator, isn't it conceivable that in some way, your iOS apps would find a way, using that emulator layer, to look something like dashboard, to run in both environments?
I'm thinking, syncing the data between both mobile and desktop iOS apps would be simple enough to be done automatically, like dropbox for instance, or a basic itunes information sync... Then on your desktop or MBP, you'd have access to content you've created on your mobile device, for a seamless user experience. None of this "sent to itunes, download from itunes" nonsense, with verions all over the place to keep track of.
I imagine a macbook pro will come someday, with a standard vertical screen and basically an ipad for the horizontal keyboard area. Imagine the possibilities there, of integrating the two ecosystems... how could they NOT give that a try?
We're not there yet, obviously, but Lion seems like something of a step in that direction.
I don't expect we'll be able to use iOS apps in OS X as early as Lion, and I understand based on the different chip architecture, it shouldn't be able to run at all...
buuuuut,
I distinctly remember watching that first keynote when they made their dev program available, and walked us through the iPhone dev tools, and seeing an OS X On-screen emulator, that would let you code and test your apps as you wrote them right there in OS X, with a big clumsy dot for a "fingertip"...
If they'll run in that emulator, isn't it conceivable that in some way, your iOS apps would find a way, using that emulator layer, to look something like dashboard, to run in both environments?
I'm thinking, syncing the data between both mobile and desktop iOS apps would be simple enough to be done automatically, like dropbox for instance, or a basic itunes information sync... Then on your desktop or MBP, you'd have access to content you've created on your mobile device, for a seamless user experience. None of this "sent to itunes, download from itunes" nonsense, with verions all over the place to keep track of.
I imagine a macbook pro will come someday, with a standard vertical screen and basically an ipad for the horizontal keyboard area. Imagine the possibilities there, of integrating the two ecosystems... how could they NOT give that a try?
We're not there yet, obviously, but Lion seems like something of a step in that direction.
�algiris
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Why did it take so long for Apple to release a statement?
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
netdog
Aug 11, 02:42 PM
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance? Last I checked, my Mac works here just fine.
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance? Last I checked, my Mac works here just fine.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
Borbarad
Aug 6, 11:29 AM
Mac OS X Leopard
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
:D
B
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
:D
B
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
How long would have been reasonable, do you think? A week is not too bad, especially considering we've just had the Easter holidays.
Also it's surely better to spend time to get something right. Clearly Apple has had to investigate the iOS source code to find out what was actually going on, as it obviously wasn't behaving as expected. Finding the right engineers and actually doing the work isn't a matter of hours.
2 days. When it was first reported. Almost a year ago.
Also it's surely better to spend time to get something right. Clearly Apple has had to investigate the iOS source code to find out what was actually going on, as it obviously wasn't behaving as expected. Finding the right engineers and actually doing the work isn't a matter of hours.
2 days. When it was first reported. Almost a year ago.
Homy
Aug 6, 07:24 AM
MBP owners don't need to worry yet. AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=1)
"The biggest performance gains are associated with 3D rendering and media encoding tasks. While Core 2 Duo does look nice, as long as you've got a good notebook today you'll probably want to wait until Santa Rosa before upgrading (at the earliest). With Santa Rosa, clock speeds will go up slightly but more importantly we'll get access to a faster FSB. Unfortunately a side-effect of keeping Core 2 Duo fed with a faster FSB is that while performance may go up, battery life may go down. For Apple users this means that early adopters of the new MacBook or MacBook Pro won't be too pressured to upgrade again by the end of this year. Of course Apple has this way of making incremental changes irresistible."
"The biggest performance gains are associated with 3D rendering and media encoding tasks. While Core 2 Duo does look nice, as long as you've got a good notebook today you'll probably want to wait until Santa Rosa before upgrading (at the earliest). With Santa Rosa, clock speeds will go up slightly but more importantly we'll get access to a faster FSB. Unfortunately a side-effect of keeping Core 2 Duo fed with a faster FSB is that while performance may go up, battery life may go down. For Apple users this means that early adopters of the new MacBook or MacBook Pro won't be too pressured to upgrade again by the end of this year. Of course Apple has this way of making incremental changes irresistible."
macfan881
Aug 6, 08:24 PM
I'm hoping for a major bombshell of an announcement when it comes to Leopard. I've said it before and I will say it again - the gap between Windows and OS X will narrow with Vista. Yes we are all aware that Vista in all likelihood is going to be just as buggy as 10.0 when it was released. But keep in mind that this will probably be the last version of OS X to be released for the next 18+ months. (When its all said and done its prob going to be close to 2 years with 10.4->10.5) That time frame is more then enough time for MS to release SP1 and SP2 which WILL happen once its released, the general public (a.k.a Beta testers.) get their hands on it, and MS starts getting those crash reports.
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
i agree i think there will be something unexpected we didnt think of for leapord maybe that would be full native suport of windows programs with out dual booting something like parcells sp? or even possible we finaly get a media center type of system we heard rumors about to
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
i agree i think there will be something unexpected we didnt think of for leapord maybe that would be full native suport of windows programs with out dual booting something like parcells sp? or even possible we finaly get a media center type of system we heard rumors about to
Rodimus Prime
Feb 27, 09:39 PM
assume what the guy says is true it looks like he has some pretty strong grounds for a wrongful termination law suit.
^squirrel^
Jul 15, 02:21 PM
Good: Dual-Core 2GHz Intel Xeon, 512MB DDR 667, ATI Radeon X1600 Pro, 250GB Hard Drive,$1799
Better: Dual-Core 2.33GHz Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $2499
Best: Two Dual-Core 2.66 Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $3299
I wonder if i'll be able to upgrade to the X1900?
Better: Dual-Core 2.33GHz Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $2499
Best: Two Dual-Core 2.66 Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $3299
I wonder if i'll be able to upgrade to the X1900?
MacRumorUser
Nov 27, 04:13 PM
Gran Turismo: The REAL driving simulator ....as long as you've grinded long enough. :rolleyes:
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
Joshuarocks
Apr 7, 11:30 PM
Best Buy is now WORST BUY!!!!
Felldownthewell
Aug 15, 11:51 AM
Amazing.
However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
mkjellman
Sep 18, 11:14 PM
to be honest - i've been looking at the lenovo offerings and i'm attracted. i have been a diehard apple fan my entire life, but if all it means is i have to use tiger clone (aka vista) but at least have hardware that is current with technology i'll buy.
so yes, apple has a monopoly, but they can't be to jack ass about it because people will start to go other places no matter how good ilife is.
there is no excuse that one of the top 5 notebook venders in the united states on intel architecture is behind this much its competitors.
so yes, apple has a monopoly, but they can't be to jack ass about it because people will start to go other places no matter how good ilife is.
there is no excuse that one of the top 5 notebook venders in the united states on intel architecture is behind this much its competitors.
dejunky
Apr 6, 03:41 PM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes.
starflyer
Apr 6, 01:41 PM
Oh yeah, well just wait until people find out iOS is a closed system and the Xoom uses Android which is open....
oh nevermind :D
oh nevermind :D
GLS
Mar 22, 01:42 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
It's the killer, alright...except this "killer" cannot do email or calendering on its own.
Link (http://macdailynews.com/2011/01/17/rim_playbook_will_ship_without_email_calendar_not_a_fully_standalone_device/)
How killer is a product that requires you to use another of the manufacturer's product in order to use two fundamental things such as email and a calendar?
Say all you want about an iPad, but it never needs to be tied to another device to access email....
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
It's the killer, alright...except this "killer" cannot do email or calendering on its own.
Link (http://macdailynews.com/2011/01/17/rim_playbook_will_ship_without_email_calendar_not_a_fully_standalone_device/)
How killer is a product that requires you to use another of the manufacturer's product in order to use two fundamental things such as email and a calendar?
Say all you want about an iPad, but it never needs to be tied to another device to access email....
Tommyg117
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
anyone else a little underwhelmed with today's WWDC? There isn't anything that really jumped out at me besides the Mac Pro.
tumblebird
Nov 28, 11:30 PM
That Doug Morris is a slimeball. Who's to say I even own any Universal music. I listen to Indie, primarily. I buy all my music, most of it on CD which I digitize, or via the iTunes Music Store. Who is Universal to demand my dollar? Or three for that matter, one for each iPod I have purchased. There are a lot of labels out there. They can't all get a portion. Apple owes them NOTHING. Did they get music from Sony for the Walkman? How many of us listened to mix tapes from friends on those? I know that most of my tapes were mixes from records and CDs. Universal is off base and greedy. Don't let this happen, Mr. Steve Jobs! You're in the right.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009