So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The Constitution was missing many civil liberties we now take for granted and wouldn't consider changing, but we all added after the fact. I see it as inevitable that homosexual marriage will be ratified as an Amendment. Perhaps within a decade. It was only 2 score and 1 year ago that interracial marriages were deemed legal by the Supreme Court.
How lovely for you. Either way, God is right. How can you fail? Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....
You just know he is sitting back in his autumn line of Ralph Laurens and laughing at all the crap and deeds claimed in his name.
Even though it is called FAITH for a reason, they KNOW these things to be TRUE with absolute certainty.
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The Constitution was missing many civil liberties we now take for granted and wouldn't consider changing, but we all added after the fact. I see it as inevitable that homosexual marriage will be ratified as an Amendment. Perhaps within a decade. It was only 2 score and 1 year ago that interracial marriages were deemed legal by the Supreme Court.
Considering within the past decade over 26 states (at last check) have passed state amendments banning them I doubt it's going to happen anytime soon. It is possible there might be a civil-union amendment but I doubt if in my lifetime (I'm only 26 so hopefully I've got a ways to go) there will be anything about marriage. Even with a 100% liberal congress you still have to get 2/3 of the states to ratify - that's much more difficult than 2/3 of Congress...
I realize the point of inter-racial marriages but that was never (as much as people would have you believe) as sharp an issue as same-sex marriage has become. Also, it's biblical relevance is sketchy as best as opposed to the clear cut nature of the issue of same-sex (sexually active) couples.
EDIT: Comparing the Supreme Courts decision to that of passing an amendment is pretty loose. They'll pass an abortion amendment long before they pass a same-sex marriage amendment and judging by the latest public opinion polls the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support 1) same-sex marriage or 2) situation independent abortions (i.e. abortions whenever anyone wants them no matter what).
Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....
Let's say that God doesn't exist. We are merely the product of Time + Matter + Chance.
If that's the case, then all love, beauty, awe and wonder, deep thoughts, righteousness and indignation -- in short, all things that make us truly human -- are nothing more than electro-chemical responses in our bodies that we perceive as love, beauty, awe, etc. Any feelings of love from your spouse are just brain waves and chemicals and juices -- no more no less.
[And if that's the case, this whole discussion on this Apple forum is ridiculous -- a bunch of ape-creatures getting all uptight over electro-chemical impulses...]
But we know that to not be the case, deep down in our hearts.
If we really were atheistically evolved beings, we would just be purely pragmatic -- eat when we're hungry, find shelter when we're cold, etc. Just like the animals. We wouldn't be capable of recognizing beauty and feeling love.
The spirit within you testifies that you are more than just 'natural'.
Almost any civil rights issue can be defined as a political one in some respect, but it does't mean it's not a civil rights issue too. Apple has more of a right to make a claim on this CA state issue than UT mormons do. 100K is nothing compared to the billions corporations spend shareholder money on all the time. We just don't hear about it.
BTW, 3.8 billion a day?
LAWL
There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one. Better join the sheltered mormons in UT, before the California gays get a chance to "force" their perversions on them. Oooh, scary.
I believe those were the lastest numbers coming down to the wire that Obama was around 3.6-3.8 billion and McCain with alot less money in hand around 700,000. Remember Obama raises about 50 million a month.
As far as the gay marriage it doesn't impact me I am not gay and I believe live and let live. Also my company already provides benefits for same sex couples and I think that is great.
My point about all this is we have so many big companies dumping money into their own pet causes that its come down to the simple fact the voter means nothing. Yet again 100,000 dollars is nothing but Apple should simply hold a neutral position on this and allow the voters to vote on the issue.
So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right? And when the supreme law governing the land not once references the claim you are trying to make it is no longer an issue of "rights" - it's an issue to be determined by the voters (i.e. Democracy).
I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.
Actually it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" -- but I agree with you...the "Common Era" just 'happens' to coincide with Jesus' birth. It's just a 'sanitizing' measure for a multicultural world.
I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.
From what I here it's commonly taught in Judaic schools. I understand your point and once accidently offended a Jewish person by asking "Why change the terminology if you are still going to follow the Christian timeline of when Jesus was supposedly born?" I was much younger then! Why the original reasoning given to me is still weak, I do think it makes sense in a connected world where the English and many US-centric patterns are followed.
The majority of the world is not Christian, so BC/AD would not make much sense, but Before Current Era/Current Era would make sense for those with basic English skills, and Christians and still call it Before Christ's Era/Christ's Era if they want. I guess it's more of a compromise since the start date could be viewed arbitrary, but the naming of BC/AD is very Christian-centric.
Perhaps we need to start a whole new system. How about we take the official Unix Time that was started 12:00:01 januiary 1st, 1970. This is the age of technology, after all. That would make it the year 0038UT
Which today is mind-boggling and should be a great cause for thought.
I'm AC/DC generally - actually no, that' a lie. In truth that would misrepresent me more than the fact that I only ever use BC/AD does.
At the same time we need to realize that it took well over 100 years to overturn the state anti-miscegenation laws and since most of the anti-same-sex marriage laws have recently been passed history should point out that it'll probably be another 80+ years before it gets overturned (if ever) and, another issue, those laws were just that - laws - the recent push for the same-sex marriage bans rest on amending the state constitutions meaning that no judge can say it's against the state constitution if the constitution has been amended as such (and since the US Constitution has nothing to say on the subject it'll be a while before the Supreme Court bothers themselves with it).
You're making things up to support your dislike of gays. Just admit you don't like gay people and don't hide behind specious arguments.
It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes. I happen to care a great deal about everyone. And yes, what we see taking place in modern times has happened before. Numerous times. It's a cycle that happens like it or not when a society becomes too degraded and self-destructs.
Look around, we live in a society addicted to porn, drugs, "reality" shows that showcase the lower realms of mankind to the point that it's become normal to cheat, lie and steal. What is popular today? Songs about rape, drug use, criminality and such. Mental drugs are being pumped into society, drugs that are the cause of our moral blindness. We have politicians themselves engaging in such activities.
By design, the body was intend to pro-create. That is it's intend purpose. Anything else is a perversion. If you want to destroy something, what do you do? You pervert it.
Make no mistake about it, this society is on a self-destruct vector. But only because it has lost it's intended purpose and goal. The questions is, what are you doing about it? Go into agreement with that which shoves it down even further?
As a stock holder I applaud Apple on this courageous move.
More companies need to support civil rights issues!
KRR
As a stock holder I believe this is the wrong move at the wrong time by the wrong company. Apple has nothing to win on this one and only things to lose. I am very displeased with Apple's management for taking this type of stand for either side in this hotly contested personal issue. This is a people decision not a company one. It may play well with the "Hollywood Crowd" but not with most shareholders. As for it being courageous, sorry, I find nothing courageous about it at all. I find it very ill advised.
Actually it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" -- but I agree with you...the "Common Era" just 'happens' to coincide with Jesus' birth. It's just a 'sanitizing' measure for a multicultural world.
Man, the books I read must have sucked because they, no lie, said "civilized era". We can't go to UNIX time tho - then the whole Windows 2000 bug never would have happened Wait, you meant the whole world didn't stop when the clock struck midnight in NYC? Oh, well, damn
EDIT: I'd bet that most people in America don't have a clue what AD means anyway BC is much easier but AD, man, stupid Latin always messing things up!
Even though it is called FAITH for a reason, they KNOW these things to be TRUE with absolute certainty.
Going off-topic with that thought:
Christians believe that God is real, and we are unable to provide a scientific proof for his existence. We believe that there is plenty of evidence, and it is on that evidence that we base our faith.
However, macro-evolution is likewise unprovable (there is no way to prove that one species evolved into another species), and yet it is often claimed as Truth. It is actually a collection of evidences that still require a leap of faith -- that Time + Matter + Chance produced your brain.
Let's say that God doesn't exist. We are merely the product of Time + Matter + Chance.
If that's the case, then all love, beauty, awe and wonder, deep thoughts, righteousness and indignation -- in short, all things that make us truly human -- are nothing more than electro-chemical responses in our bodies that we perceive as love, beauty, awe, etc. Any feelings of love from your spouse are just brain waves and chemicals and juices -- no more no less.
[And if that's the case, this whole discussion on this Apple forum is ridiculous -- a bunch of ape-creatures getting all uptight over electro-chemical impulses...]
But we know that to not be the case, deep down in our hearts.
If we really were atheistically evolved beings, we would just be purely pragmatic -- eat when we're hungry, find shelter when we're cold, etc. Just like the animals. We wouldn't be capable of recognizing beauty and feeling love.
The spirit within you testifies that you are more than just 'natural'.
No no - I really do believe what you say in your first two paragraphs to be true. I also truly believe your parenthesized thought to be true. Where I guess we really differ is that the knowledge of that does not alter my perception of the experience, nor make it in any sense invalid. I also believe that LOVE is biological function of survival. Nothing more. I have kids and they are such a pain that from a survival point of view it would take something truly powerful for me to stick around and help them to their feet. Hence love. Cynical? Not really, my love for life and the people around me is not diminished. My compassion for people around the world less fortunate than me no less. Perhaps the love of god is also a survival thing. A need for a kind of euphoria to see you through the hardships. A way to rationalize all the crap - you know - no matter how bad it gets its god's will so its ok, kind of thing. A bit like the pull of the euphoric feeling of the high for the addict
Man, the books I read must have sucked because they, no lie, said "civilized era". We can't go to UNIX time tho - then the whole Windows 2000 bug never would have happened Wait, you meant the whole world didn't stop when the clock struck midnight in NYC? Oh, well, damn
EDIT: I'd bet that most people in America don't have a clue what AD means anyway BC is much easier but AD, man, stupid Latin always messing things up!
Actually, you may be right, too:
According to the ALMIGHTY WIKI:
Quote:
Anno Domini is sometimes referred to as the Common Era, Christian Era or Current Era (abbreviated as C.E. or CE).
After a lot of research and an agonizingly long wait for the aluminum MacBooks, I was planning to go to the Apple Store tomorrow to purchase a new 2.4Ghz MacBook. Then I saw this news.
If Jobs had given $100,000 of his own money to oppose California Proposition 8, it would have been different. If Apple employees want to give their own money, that is their business. But the definition of marriage is a deeply-held, moral and ethical position. And for a company such as Apple, which is known for the fanatical loyalty of its customer base, to take one side of such a critical issue is to suggest that those who support Apple should support that view also.
CEO's should use their own resources in support of a cause, instead of taking the revenue that comes from a company's customer base and using it in controversial ways that many of their customers cannot support.
So, as much as I was looking forward to it, my purchase of a MacBook is off--and no iPod Touch either.
Comments
So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The Constitution was missing many civil liberties we now take for granted and wouldn't consider changing, but we all added after the fact. I see it as inevitable that homosexual marriage will be ratified as an Amendment. Perhaps within a decade. It was only 2 score and 1 year ago that interracial marriages were deemed legal by the Supreme Court.
How lovely for you. Either way, God is right. How can you fail? Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....
You just know he is sitting back in his autumn line of Ralph Laurens and laughing at all the crap and deeds claimed in his name.
Even though it is called FAITH for a reason, they KNOW these things to be TRUE with absolute certainty.
You homos are not as powerful or as popular as you think. YOU WILL LOSE THE PROP 8 FIGHT BY A LANDSLIDE. I cant wait!!!!
Celebrate with a kiss, please?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The Constitution was missing many civil liberties we now take for granted and wouldn't consider changing, but we all added after the fact. I see it as inevitable that homosexual marriage will be ratified as an Amendment. Perhaps within a decade. It was only 2 score and 1 year ago that interracial marriages were deemed legal by the Supreme Court.
Considering within the past decade over 26 states (at last check) have passed state amendments banning them I doubt it's going to happen anytime soon. It is possible there might be a civil-union amendment but I doubt if in my lifetime (I'm only 26 so hopefully I've got a ways to go) there will be anything about marriage. Even with a 100% liberal congress you still have to get 2/3 of the states to ratify - that's much more difficult than 2/3 of Congress...
I realize the point of inter-racial marriages but that was never (as much as people would have you believe) as sharp an issue as same-sex marriage has become. Also, it's biblical relevance is sketchy as best as opposed to the clear cut nature of the issue of same-sex (sexually active) couples.
EDIT: Comparing the Supreme Courts decision to that of passing an amendment is pretty loose. They'll pass an abortion amendment long before they pass a same-sex marriage amendment and judging by the latest public opinion polls the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support 1) same-sex marriage or 2) situation independent abortions (i.e. abortions whenever anyone wants them no matter what).
Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....
Let's say that God doesn't exist. We are merely the product of Time + Matter + Chance.
If that's the case, then all love, beauty, awe and wonder, deep thoughts, righteousness and indignation -- in short, all things that make us truly human -- are nothing more than electro-chemical responses in our bodies that we perceive as love, beauty, awe, etc. Any feelings of love from your spouse are just brain waves and chemicals and juices -- no more no less.
[And if that's the case, this whole discussion on this Apple forum is ridiculous -- a bunch of ape-creatures getting all uptight over electro-chemical impulses...]
But we know that to not be the case, deep down in our hearts.
If we really were atheistically evolved beings, we would just be purely pragmatic -- eat when we're hungry, find shelter when we're cold, etc. Just like the animals. We wouldn't be capable of recognizing beauty and feeling love.
The spirit within you testifies that you are more than just 'natural'.
Almost any civil rights issue can be defined as a political one in some respect, but it does't mean it's not a civil rights issue too. Apple has more of a right to make a claim on this CA state issue than UT mormons do. 100K is nothing compared to the billions corporations spend shareholder money on all the time. We just don't hear about it.
BTW, 3.8 billion a day?
LAWL
There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one. Better join the sheltered mormons in UT, before the California gays get a chance to "force" their perversions on them. Oooh, scary.
I believe those were the lastest numbers coming down to the wire that Obama was around 3.6-3.8 billion and McCain with alot less money in hand around 700,000. Remember Obama raises about 50 million a month.
As far as the gay marriage it doesn't impact me I am not gay and I believe live and let live. Also my company already provides benefits for same sex couples and I think that is great.
My point about all this is we have so many big companies dumping money into their own pet causes that its come down to the simple fact the voter means nothing. Yet again 100,000 dollars is nothing but Apple should simply hold a neutral position on this and allow the voters to vote on the issue.
It was only 2 score and 1 year ago that interracial marriages were deemed legal by the Supreme Court.
Which today is mind-boggling and should be a great cause for thought.
I'm AC/DC generally - actually no, that' a lie. In truth that would misrepresent me more than the fact that I only ever use BC/AD does.
So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right? And when the supreme law governing the land not once references the claim you are trying to make it is no longer an issue of "rights" - it's an issue to be determined by the voters (i.e. Democracy).
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Please tell me the correct wording then.
Should I use the right to ask for a "marriage license"?
Two spouses get certain rights when they get married.
That is what is meant by "the right to get married".
These rights are widely and internationally recognized.
A citizen has the right to join in mariage with another citizen to get the rights that a marriage license gives them.
Or do we disagree about there being anything like a marriage?
Edit:
The constitution does not only protect constitutional rights.
If I'm not mistaken it is an explicit Constitutional Right that every individual should have the same legal rights.
I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.
Actually it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" -- but I agree with you...the "Common Era" just 'happens' to coincide with Jesus' birth.
I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.
From what I here it's commonly taught in Judaic schools. I understand your point and once accidently offended a Jewish person by asking "Why change the terminology if you are still going to follow the Christian timeline of when Jesus was supposedly born?" I was much younger then! Why the original reasoning given to me is still weak, I do think it makes sense in a connected world where the English and many US-centric patterns are followed.
The majority of the world is not Christian, so BC/AD would not make much sense, but Before Current Era/Current Era would make sense for those with basic English skills, and Christians and still call it Before Christ's Era/Christ's Era if they want. I guess it's more of a compromise since the start date could be viewed arbitrary, but the naming of BC/AD is very Christian-centric.
Perhaps we need to start a whole new system. How about we take the official Unix Time that was started 12:00:01 januiary 1st, 1970. This is the age of technology, after all. That would make it the year 0038UT
Which today is mind-boggling and should be a great cause for thought.
I'm AC/DC generally - actually no, that' a lie. In truth that would misrepresent me more than the fact that I only ever use BC/AD does.
At the same time we need to realize that it took well over 100 years to overturn the state anti-miscegenation laws and since most of the anti-same-sex marriage laws have recently been passed history should point out that it'll probably be another 80+ years before it gets overturned (if ever) and, another issue, those laws were just that - laws - the recent push for the same-sex marriage bans rest on amending the state constitutions meaning that no judge can say it's against the state constitution if the constitution has been amended as such (and since the US Constitution has nothing to say on the subject it'll be a while before the Supreme Court bothers themselves with it).
You're making things up to support your dislike of gays. Just admit you don't like gay people and don't hide behind specious arguments.
It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes. I happen to care a great deal about everyone. And yes, what we see taking place in modern times has happened before. Numerous times. It's a cycle that happens like it or not when a society becomes too degraded and self-destructs.
Look around, we live in a society addicted to porn, drugs, "reality" shows that showcase the lower realms of mankind to the point that it's become normal to cheat, lie and steal. What is popular today? Songs about rape, drug use, criminality and such. Mental drugs are being pumped into society, drugs that are the cause of our moral blindness. We have politicians themselves engaging in such activities.
By design, the body was intend to pro-create. That is it's intend purpose. Anything else is a perversion. If you want to destroy something, what do you do? You pervert it.
Make no mistake about it, this society is on a self-destruct vector. But only because it has lost it's intended purpose and goal. The questions is, what are you doing about it? Go into agreement with that which shoves it down even further?
As a stock holder I applaud Apple on this courageous move.
More companies need to support civil rights issues!
KRR
As a stock holder I believe this is the wrong move at the wrong time by the wrong company. Apple has nothing to win on this one and only things to lose. I am very displeased with Apple's management for taking this type of stand for either side in this hotly contested personal issue. This is a people decision not a company one. It may play well with the "Hollywood Crowd" but not with most shareholders. As for it being courageous, sorry, I find nothing courageous about it at all. I find it very ill advised.
Actually it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" -- but I agree with you...the "Common Era" just 'happens' to coincide with Jesus' birth.
Man, the books I read must have sucked because they, no lie, said "civilized era". We can't go to UNIX time tho - then the whole Windows 2000 bug never would have happened
EDIT: I'd bet that most people in America don't have a clue what AD means anyway
Even though it is called FAITH for a reason, they KNOW these things to be TRUE with absolute certainty.
Going off-topic with that thought:
Christians believe that God is real, and we are unable to provide a scientific proof for his existence. We believe that there is plenty of evidence, and it is on that evidence that we base our faith.
However, macro-evolution is likewise unprovable (there is no way to prove that one species evolved into another species), and yet it is often claimed as Truth. It is actually a collection of evidences that still require a leap of faith -- that Time + Matter + Chance produced your brain.
Let's say that God doesn't exist. We are merely the product of Time + Matter + Chance.
If that's the case, then all love, beauty, awe and wonder, deep thoughts, righteousness and indignation -- in short, all things that make us truly human -- are nothing more than electro-chemical responses in our bodies that we perceive as love, beauty, awe, etc. Any feelings of love from your spouse are just brain waves and chemicals and juices -- no more no less.
[And if that's the case, this whole discussion on this Apple forum is ridiculous -- a bunch of ape-creatures getting all uptight over electro-chemical impulses...]
But we know that to not be the case, deep down in our hearts.
If we really were atheistically evolved beings, we would just be purely pragmatic -- eat when we're hungry, find shelter when we're cold, etc. Just like the animals. We wouldn't be capable of recognizing beauty and feeling love.
The spirit within you testifies that you are more than just 'natural'.
No no - I really do believe what you say in your first two paragraphs to be true. I also truly believe your parenthesized thought to be true. Where I guess we really differ is that the knowledge of that does not alter my perception of the experience, nor make it in any sense invalid. I also believe that LOVE is biological function of survival. Nothing more. I have kids and they are such a pain that from a survival point of view it would take something truly powerful for me to stick around and help them to their feet. Hence love. Cynical? Not really, my love for life and the people around me is not diminished. My compassion for people around the world less fortunate than me no less. Perhaps the love of god is also a survival thing. A need for a kind of euphoria to see you through the hardships. A way to rationalize all the crap - you know - no matter how bad it gets its god's will so its ok, kind of thing. A bit like the pull of the euphoric feeling of the high for the addict
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so arownious' assertion still stands.
Yes, I caught my own error after the fact. Nonetheless...!
Man, the books I read must have sucked because they, no lie, said "civilized era". We can't go to UNIX time tho - then the whole Windows 2000 bug never would have happened
EDIT: I'd bet that most people in America don't have a clue what AD means anyway
Actually, you may be right, too:
According to the ALMIGHTY WIKI:
Anno Domini is sometimes referred to as the Common Era, Christian Era or Current Era (abbreviated as C.E. or CE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_domini
I've always seen it as "Common Era" in museum displays, though.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Umm, that's not the Constitution - that's the Declaration of Independence...
Yes, I know. Caught myself after the fact.
If Jobs had given $100,000 of his own money to oppose California Proposition 8, it would have been different. If Apple employees want to give their own money, that is their business. But the definition of marriage is a deeply-held, moral and ethical position. And for a company such as Apple, which is known for the fanatical loyalty of its customer base, to take one side of such a critical issue is to suggest that those who support Apple should support that view also.
CEO's should use their own resources in support of a cause, instead of taking the revenue that comes from a company's customer base and using it in controversial ways that many of their customers cannot support.
So, as much as I was looking forward to it, my purchase of a MacBook is off--and no iPod Touch either.