ATD
Nov 2, 01:25 AM
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
I'm not sure how the app (Maya) itself scales but the rendering in Mental Ray scales perfectly. 4 cpus render twice as fast as 2, 6 cpus render 3 times as fast as 2. That's if all the cpus are the same of course.
Is that what you were asking?
I'm not sure how the app (Maya) itself scales but the rendering in Mental Ray scales perfectly. 4 cpus render twice as fast as 2, 6 cpus render 3 times as fast as 2. That's if all the cpus are the same of course.
Is that what you were asking?
macidiot
Jul 12, 05:24 PM
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
sinsin07
Apr 8, 11:43 PM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
aquadjcity
Oct 31, 09:00 AM
My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...
rikers_mailbox
Sep 25, 11:54 PM
In the likely event Apple choses to use Cloverton Xeon core as the next Mac Pro CPU, educated speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345..
http://www.MacSpeculation.com (http://www.macrumors.com) :confused:
Apple iPhone 3GS Black or
Used APPLE IPHONE 3G 16GB
iphone 3g 16gb white
iPhone 3G white 16gb unboxing
Apple iPhone 3G 16GB Unlocked
remaining iPhone 3G stock.
Apple Iphone 3GS 16gb
Apple Iphone 3g 16gb White
Apple iPhone 3G 16GB White
Apple iPhone 3G - 16GB
IPHONE 3GS 16GB WHITE COLOR
Pictures of iphone 3gs 16gb
owners of white iPhone 3G
iPhone 3G 16GB (White).
http://www.MacSpeculation.com (http://www.macrumors.com) :confused:
redkamel
Apr 13, 01:16 AM
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
peharri
Sep 21, 03:04 PM
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 08:05 PM
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.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
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.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
citizenzen
Mar 16, 11:57 AM
First...
Second...
Third...
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
*ouch*
Rolled my eyes so far I think I pulled something.
Second...
Third...
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
*ouch*
Rolled my eyes so far I think I pulled something.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:48 AM
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
gravytrain84
Mar 18, 01:31 AM
I knew this was coming sooner or later....:mad:
Salacion
Apr 20, 06:23 PM
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:24 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 03:14 PM
im hoping that apple has optimized leopard to be able to assign certain applications to certain cores. just like what some of the other posters have said
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
Unless you're doing realtime work with strict QoS demands, it's almost always better to let the OS schedule all threads across all CPUs.
In the situation you describe, your browser would slow down when mail woke up to do something - even if QT or photoshop were idle.
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
Unless you're doing realtime work with strict QoS demands, it's almost always better to let the OS schedule all threads across all CPUs.
In the situation you describe, your browser would slow down when mail woke up to do something - even if QT or photoshop were idle.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 08:55 PM
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
I think you confuse cooperation with exploitation by paying those in the Sahara (which is Africa by the way) a fair price for their resource it's a win win situation,applying 19th century ideas to a 21st century problem isn't going to work.It would raise living standards in Saharan Africa to European levels very quickly.
I think you confuse cooperation with exploitation by paying those in the Sahara (which is Africa by the way) a fair price for their resource it's a win win situation,applying 19th century ideas to a 21st century problem isn't going to work.It would raise living standards in Saharan Africa to European levels very quickly.
brianus
Sep 26, 12:01 PM
Hey here's a question: what comes after Clovertown? The roadmap is kinda confusing after that from what I've seen. When can we reasonably expect Clovertown's successor, and what will it consist of?
I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?
I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?
Multimedia
Oct 7, 06:52 PM
The slower Clovertowns also match the Woodie for TDP - you can get more power (for multi-threaded workflows) at the same power consumption (and heat production) with the quad.By Quad you mean each slower Clovertown or a pair of faster Woodies?
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 06:39 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
You're incorrect... well... at least I think you are.
I have yet to meet a professional in this field that resists products getting easier to use. But what professionals hate are changes so drastic that 1) there's a learning curve, thus slowing them down, preventing them to make a living and 2) removing features that significantly change the workflow that allow them to work quickly and creatively.
Number 2 is my biggest worry. A complete rewrite is great. 64 bit is great. Grand Central is great. Multi-Core is great. What isn't great is the potential loss of features. Even the littlest feature, that most people would find mundane, could be very important to editors who've become used to that feature being in their workflow.
I work in broadcast/cable news where editors have to turn packages around quickly. You remove features that prevent them to work quickly because it altered their workflow... well now you're in trouble.
I can buy the excuse "Well they'll add it in version 2" if we're talking about consumer programs like iMovie. iMovie is not "mission critical."
But that feature that existed in the old-world FCP versions MUST be in X from day one, IMO, or else Apple will face a steep uphill battle to win FCP editors back.
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
You're incorrect... well... at least I think you are.
I have yet to meet a professional in this field that resists products getting easier to use. But what professionals hate are changes so drastic that 1) there's a learning curve, thus slowing them down, preventing them to make a living and 2) removing features that significantly change the workflow that allow them to work quickly and creatively.
Number 2 is my biggest worry. A complete rewrite is great. 64 bit is great. Grand Central is great. Multi-Core is great. What isn't great is the potential loss of features. Even the littlest feature, that most people would find mundane, could be very important to editors who've become used to that feature being in their workflow.
I work in broadcast/cable news where editors have to turn packages around quickly. You remove features that prevent them to work quickly because it altered their workflow... well now you're in trouble.
I can buy the excuse "Well they'll add it in version 2" if we're talking about consumer programs like iMovie. iMovie is not "mission critical."
But that feature that existed in the old-world FCP versions MUST be in X from day one, IMO, or else Apple will face a steep uphill battle to win FCP editors back.
Cromulent
Apr 24, 10:13 AM
No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
BJNY
Nov 1, 05:14 PM
If one follows the link,
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 12, 03:55 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 11:39 PM
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
skunk
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Presumably this is/was the selfsame containment building which was supposed to contain the pressurised radioactive steam which was vented from the reactor. The billowing cloud is described elsewhere as "vapour", i.e. "steam". Seems difficult to reconcile the picture with public statements about a "tiny" amount of radioactive material being released.
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:09 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
No, civil marriage is not required for sex, but it sure is required for a whole lot of other things like protecting our kids and partners legally. I know you must think that's just horrible, but there you go.
Right, lame jokes. Ok. Modern equivalent of female stand-up comics that used to joke about men leaving the toilet seat up.
Real sophisticated.
I don't think he meant it as a joke. A friend of mine got AIDS from a priest when he was under age. It's not funny.
No, civil marriage is not required for sex, but it sure is required for a whole lot of other things like protecting our kids and partners legally. I know you must think that's just horrible, but there you go.
Right, lame jokes. Ok. Modern equivalent of female stand-up comics that used to joke about men leaving the toilet seat up.
Real sophisticated.
I don't think he meant it as a joke. A friend of mine got AIDS from a priest when he was under age. It's not funny.
