GGJstudios
May 2, 05:21 PM
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
It's not an "idea" that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X; it's a fact. Whether malware is a virus or trojan is important, because it determines what defense is required. Rather than lump everything together and erroneously call it a virus, it's more helpful to properly identify what kind of threat it is, so users know how best to handle it. Even in the absence of viruses, safe computer practices are always encouraged, such as not pirating software or downloading codecs or plug-ins from disreputable sites. In fact, it's more helpful to encourage safe computing practices than to recommend antivirus apps, which can give a user a false sense of security.
It's not an "idea" that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X; it's a fact. Whether malware is a virus or trojan is important, because it determines what defense is required. Rather than lump everything together and erroneously call it a virus, it's more helpful to properly identify what kind of threat it is, so users know how best to handle it. Even in the absence of viruses, safe computer practices are always encouraged, such as not pirating software or downloading codecs or plug-ins from disreputable sites. In fact, it's more helpful to encourage safe computing practices than to recommend antivirus apps, which can give a user a false sense of security.
Mal
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I have some family members visiting Japan and a number of friends living there. They've been posting pictures and video on Facebook all the time, from the Chiba area mostly. While they're all ok, this situation with the nuclear reactors definitely have me worried. They're a few hours away from those reactors, though not far from the Ichihara oil refinery fire. Really hoping this doesn't just get worse.
jW
jW
archipellago
May 2, 04:07 PM
by default and design, Windows has been more secure than OSX for years now...Google it...!
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
Speedy2
Oct 8, 03:46 PM
ya that's why I said "generally", however, Googles main source of revenue is advertising. So all google wants is more and more people with smart phones.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
xiaoyu04
Oct 25, 10:21 PM
wow, that was a fast announcement? if i remember correctly the clovertons come out mid nov don't they?
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
Lepton
Oct 25, 11:00 PM
It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
Apple OC
Apr 26, 10:16 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 05:54 AM
You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
playaj82
Jul 12, 03:20 PM
I hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
This high-def disk stuff is still too limited in its everyday usefulness. Of course there are always early adopters and people that have to have it right away, but Apple's entire pro line jeopardized by the price constraints of including a $1000 BR drive, or even having to support it, doubtful.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
This high-def disk stuff is still too limited in its everyday usefulness. Of course there are always early adopters and people that have to have it right away, but Apple's entire pro line jeopardized by the price constraints of including a $1000 BR drive, or even having to support it, doubtful.
.JPG "derrick rose girlfriend marisa")
firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
EricNau
Mar 14, 09:29 PM
An excellent article detailing the media's exaggeration of Japan's nuclear situation. It's bad, but no where near as bad as many seem to think.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/
MorphingDragon
Apr 30, 04:34 AM
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC???
Dumba$$
If you have Xeon Chips you'll have a Server or Workstation motherboard most likely with ECC RAM. Sorry dude, you have a workstation. :rolleyes:
Dumba$$
If you have Xeon Chips you'll have a Server or Workstation motherboard most likely with ECC RAM. Sorry dude, you have a workstation. :rolleyes:
CaoCao
Mar 26, 09:07 PM
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:36 AM
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
JackAxe
Sep 26, 04:22 PM
This coming year is going to be great. A MacPro with 8 cores along with UB versions of the software packages I use daily. What more could a peep like me ask for... Well, Pixar could offer mult-threading support for Renderman Maya plug-in, that would be nice. :o
Good things come to those who wait. :)
<]=)
Good things come to those who wait. :)
<]=)
firestarter
Apr 23, 07:39 PM
I thought I answered this fairly well on the previous page.
*shrug*
OK, let's see.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
*shrug*
OK, let's see.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Truffy
Apr 20, 09:32 AM
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
100Teraflops
Apr 6, 08:23 PM
Hi guys,
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
iRockMan1
Apr 9, 03:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
pmz
Mar 18, 09:14 AM
Wait, you have evidence that AT&T has zero evidence?
Didn't think so.
For all you know, they're doing the same deep-packet inspections on their data network that wired broadband providers have been doing for years.
Oh, is that in the contract too? Is that legal? NOPE.
All it would take is one class action lawsuit to destroy everything this company has done for 5 years.
Didn't think so.
For all you know, they're doing the same deep-packet inspections on their data network that wired broadband providers have been doing for years.
Oh, is that in the contract too? Is that legal? NOPE.
All it would take is one class action lawsuit to destroy everything this company has done for 5 years.
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 02:00 PM
Thankyou Jerry!
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:27 PM
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
- DVD player
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
- Input for digital cable
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
I could not disagree more.
It exceeds the xBox 360 due to the inclusion of HDMI.
It will play DVD's, for sure, through the desktop server
It uses the superior FrontRow navigation system
It has a cleaner appearance than xbox, no power brick, runs quieter and cooler
Will not crash like the hot running xBox.
Will be prices slightly cheaper allowing for inclusion on multiple TV's throughout the home
It does not play games will work in Apple's favor as many parents don't want this feature for their children.
Digital Cable and TV recording to Hard Disk are handled by the Media SERVER (desktop) using cheap and currently available 3rd party products -- watch for apple to bundle this in the coming year and one half.
iTV is a winner for sure.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
- DVD player
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
- Input for digital cable
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
I could not disagree more.
It exceeds the xBox 360 due to the inclusion of HDMI.
It will play DVD's, for sure, through the desktop server
It uses the superior FrontRow navigation system
It has a cleaner appearance than xbox, no power brick, runs quieter and cooler
Will not crash like the hot running xBox.
Will be prices slightly cheaper allowing for inclusion on multiple TV's throughout the home
It does not play games will work in Apple's favor as many parents don't want this feature for their children.
Digital Cable and TV recording to Hard Disk are handled by the Media SERVER (desktop) using cheap and currently available 3rd party products -- watch for apple to bundle this in the coming year and one half.
iTV is a winner for sure.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:23 PM
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar