Good answer, but even better: go around to ALL of your employees and see how everyone is doing. If you are indeed a "manager", then people are your most important asset. True, nerds pretty much overlook this, but that doesn't make it any less important. Why is it that in IT, people with the most technical skills are handed the job that requires the most people skills? Hmmm....
I was in the States last summer and I couldn't find a non-HDTV at the Circuit City there. I find the "10% penetration" quote for the UK to be strange as well, because I literally don't know a single person who doesn't have an HDTV. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who actually has any HD content, but the TVs are HD none-the-less. Maybe they are getting 10% from the number of people who watch HD content on their televisions? It isn't like my observations are anecdotal either, because every electronics store in this country (all the major ones at least) carry predominantly HD tvs. Trying to find a non-HDTV is pointless. Maybe I just roll with high-spenders, but I certainly wouldn't even know where to look to find a non-hd tv here, or in the States.
Well, you are forgetting the very short history of console wars. Sony PS2 dominates the market in terms of overall games and marketshare. I prefer the regular Xbox to the PS2, because it has prettier games, but the PS2 was more popular and had more games. I'm just stating the obvious here: just because a platform has more games, doesn't mean it is a better platform. More junk is not always welcomed.
That's the problem when you start gettng into 'high-end', though. The higher end it gets, the less people it appeals to (even though it is technically better), and the less sales you'll make. Maybe Sony isn't looking to dominate the market, and would rather put the most high-tech gaming platform they can out there? Look at the MacPro tower, for example. A pretty awesome piece of machinery, but I bet the $1200 MacBooks outsell it 5:1. Maybe Xbox360 and PS3 have overreached their target audiences, thus explaining the success of the Wii.
Then again, if you are like me, you don't consider sales figures into the formula when deciding what product is good. A product can be good or bad, independent of how well or poorly it sells.
People aren't rushing out to buy new HDTVs. Its mainly people replacing old tvs with HD because they think they'll have to, very few people getting rid of working sets for HD.
Are you kidding me? Where do you live!!?? I'm an American living in England, and although this country has oppressive taxes and insane prices on electronics (electricals, for my Brit friends) EVERYONE I know already has at least one HD tv. And where I live, there is very little HD content on TV, and it is stupid expensive (with a two-year requirement to boot). People are buying TVs for the flat form-factor, and most of them have HD built-in. If they don't, like you said, people pay the little extra, just for the comfort they aren't buying something already outdated. The US military base here doesn't even sell tube TVs anymore and non-HD tvs are hard to find (the sub $1000 flat screens probably don't do HD, but I didn't check). People here ARE rushing out to buy HDTVs and they are buying them in multiples.
I was holding out for an HD tv too. I told myself I'd wait until the magical $1500 price (the price I paid for my last TV, 35", 1993). I now own a 42" Hitachi HD plasma tv, so I'm looking into the dvd upscaling. I have a pretty high end Yamaha DVD player, but I have no idea if it upscales. Gotta check into that. If not, the PS3 is definitely on my radar.
I wish people would drop the scare tactic "lock in" nonesense. Blue-ray lock-in? And what exactly are your choices with Xbox 360? If you want to complain about mythical "lock-in", you could at least state the obvious, and say that Sony locks you into Playstation games, and Xbox locks you into Xbox games. Lock-in is nearly as tired as people complaining about DRM or calling people fanbois.
If anything, I'd consider the PS3 for the following reasons: most likely won't need to be replaced three or four times, at a cost of $1 billion to the company, HDMI-interface, and slightly better specs. I'd consider the Xbox 360 for a couple reasons too: right now it is cheaper and has better games. That never worked for me in the PC vs. Mac argument, since I've never seen the allure of having MORE crappy software, when a few good ones are enough, but is at least ONE game on Xbox that is Xbox only (Forza) that I want. None of the PS3 games that I'd play are PS3 only.
I'm afraid you'll be waiting forever then. Apple is obviously going away from the standard form-factor pc (rightfully so, in my opinion). In the process, however, they are losing the remaining customers like yourself, until in a few years from now, when nearly ALL PCs will have left the tower form-factor for servers and high-end machines. I think Apple (and others) have shown that the cheap and fast "Centrino" like all-in-ones (i.e., iMacs and other brands similar models). Apple has a lot of precedent when it comes to forcing PC standards (cd-rom standard in early 90s, 3.5" floppy, then NO floppy, USB only machines, etc.) I think you'll see in the next year or so that fears of standard laptop parts being worse than full-sized motherboard components.
Then again, I could be all wrong and Apple could drop a MacSemi-Pro on us or something. I have a G4 tower that I bought in late 1999 and I never utilized all the bays and upgrade options available (other than a cpu upgrade), so I reluctantly bought an Intel iMac. This is the best computer I've ever owned as compared to the current offerings and prices, by far.
Ok, that is much more extensive than I thought, but ONLY because you want to get around "mirroring" mode. Your original post makes more sense now. But, at the end of this post you say you want it for midrange Macs, but all midrange macs have had multiple monitor support for at least 15 years now (such as my Intel iMac right now). What you are saying is you want multiple monitor support on entry level macs, no?
No, you have it all wrong. I am blissfully AWARE that I am NOT a prisoner of primal urges, as demonstrated by the fact that I HAVE A BRAIN, and decide when, where and how I fornicate. Animals go into heat. Humans have congnative processes that animals in heat do not possess. The fact that SOME people operate on your lame premise just goes to show how wrong "business, politics and war" can be when left in the hands of primal dolts with little capacity of controling their hormones. 532 called...they want their cavemen back.
I play in a rock band to get use out of the $10,000 worth of drums I've collected in the past 5 years. I did land a wife in there sometime too, but that probably had more to do with the fact I was her instructor and was able to invite her to one of my gigs than it did being a drummer in a crappy cover band.
Again, I argue that higher latitudes have LONGER daylight hours than equitorial countries. In England, (ca. 65th parallel) I'm exposed to approximately 17 hours of sunlight on July 21st. Being that I grew up at the 45th parallel, and have lived 10 years prior to here in Texas (don't know the parallel, because I don't think they know that means in Texas), my skin pigmentation is a mess, but probably more steeped in my Grandfather's DNA than it is my geographic location.
Geeks are good with words, but not face-to-face...hence, they come to slashdot. And good point about the gym. As an average person of average build, the thing I hate the most about trying to stay healthy (i.e. going to the gym) is that the meat-heads are all trying to prove how much stronger they are than me...which is pretty obvious by the three or four 45 lb. weights stacked on each side of their bench presses, as I put ONE 25 pounder on each side, and struggle to get through three sets of ten. But then again, I can whip their ass on a 10k or half-marathon...does that get me laid?
Nope. But thanks for the free psycho-babble, Dr. Freud. I have sex to get off, basically. Or sometimes to strengthen the strong emotional bond I have with my wife, but mostly just to get off. AND, since we CONSCIOUSLY use birth-control, we most definitely are not subconsciously trying to reproduce. I find this whole article to be about 100 years behind the times and condescending...yeah, as if I have no control over my sexual urges? Whatever. I'm a human, not a freakin' cat in heat. And please don't dismiss my intentions of not impregnating my wife as some sort of fetish. Gay men and sheepf&#*ers around the world would be insulted!
And at what point in human evolution do men start being attracted to women for things other than sexual dimensions? Or I'm I just too cutting-edge evolutionary man, that it hasn't happened yet (except for me).
My experience with working with middle eastern militaries, is that, since sex before marriage and jacking off are immoral, you just have ass sex with the youngest most un-willing guy in your squad (usually a kid about 16 or 17 years old). They are called "soldier #9", in case you are desperate. My question, which has never been answered, is if homosexual sex is also a sin, then how do they justify soldier #9?
Yet it is when people disagree with "facts" that they demonize it by calling it a stereotype. You could have 5 guys in a room named Nick, and state as such, and somebody will get offended that you assume everyone is named Nick and say you are just stereotyping them. Tautology or not, if 5 out of 5 guys are named Nick, then, surprise, ALL of them are named Nick. It goes both ways.
I agree about your stereotypes statement: they come from somewhere don't they? My problem is the lack of evidence and obvious oversimplification of the findings in this article. It is one thing to say that there are more black people in the NBA (because it is true), but another thing completely to say there are more black people in the NBA because they are taller, because they are from Africa and closer to the sun. Yes, I've actually heard someone say this before. Or to take this article's horsedookie into account, more black people play basketball to get laid.
#2. Your boyfriend stops trying to get into your pants, because you are fat, and obviously not fertile, so you are wasting his time, because all guys want a baby to follow 9-monnths after every sexual encounter...it is evolutionary pyschology to blame!
In my opinion, the greatest flaw of this article is that it fails to differentiate human nature from animal nature. None of my friends attempt to hook up with women in the hopes that they are fertile and will get pregnant. My neighbors horny dog, on the other hand, does (with other dogs, not women, hehe).
Great post (funny too). I think the authors have confused the term evolutionary pyschology with what the rest of us call culture. Why do men like big tits? Because Playboy magazine, hardcore porn, and Baywatch all put forth big-breasted women as the ideal woman. I'm sure in other socities the culture dictates something completely different...maybe something like German men like women with hairy armpits (to be as equaly simplistic as TFA).
It looks like they are just copying the financially successful formula of writing a book that the authors of Freakonomics used. Sensationalize, advertise, legitimize: go on a lot of talk shows and Fox News, sell tons of copies to people who don't know research from retard, and then plaster your educational credentials all over it to legitimize the findings.
Stewbacca, MAEd. (there, I hope my educational credentials make my opinion more betterer).
Slashdot Mirror
Good answer, but even better: go around to ALL of your employees and see how everyone is doing. If you are indeed a "manager", then people are your most important asset. True, nerds pretty much overlook this, but that doesn't make it any less important. Why is it that in IT, people with the most technical skills are handed the job that requires the most people skills? Hmmm....
I was in the States last summer and I couldn't find a non-HDTV at the Circuit City there. I find the "10% penetration" quote for the UK to be strange as well, because I literally don't know a single person who doesn't have an HDTV. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who actually has any HD content, but the TVs are HD none-the-less. Maybe they are getting 10% from the number of people who watch HD content on their televisions? It isn't like my observations are anecdotal either, because every electronics store in this country (all the major ones at least) carry predominantly HD tvs. Trying to find a non-HDTV is pointless. Maybe I just roll with high-spenders, but I certainly wouldn't even know where to look to find a non-hd tv here, or in the States.
Well, you are forgetting the very short history of console wars. Sony PS2 dominates the market in terms of overall games and marketshare. I prefer the regular Xbox to the PS2, because it has prettier games, but the PS2 was more popular and had more games. I'm just stating the obvious here: just because a platform has more games, doesn't mean it is a better platform. More junk is not always welcomed.
Then again, if you are like me, you don't consider sales figures into the formula when deciding what product is good. A product can be good or bad, independent of how well or poorly it sells.
You can label me as A,B and C. Well stated...very nice post.
I was holding out for an HD tv too. I told myself I'd wait until the magical $1500 price (the price I paid for my last TV, 35", 1993). I now own a 42" Hitachi HD plasma tv, so I'm looking into the dvd upscaling. I have a pretty high end Yamaha DVD player, but I have no idea if it upscales. Gotta check into that. If not, the PS3 is definitely on my radar.
If anything, I'd consider the PS3 for the following reasons: most likely won't need to be replaced three or four times, at a cost of $1 billion to the company, HDMI-interface, and slightly better specs. I'd consider the Xbox 360 for a couple reasons too: right now it is cheaper and has better games. That never worked for me in the PC vs. Mac argument, since I've never seen the allure of having MORE crappy software, when a few good ones are enough, but is at least ONE game on Xbox that is Xbox only (Forza) that I want. None of the PS3 games that I'd play are PS3 only.
Then again, I could be all wrong and Apple could drop a MacSemi-Pro on us or something. I have a G4 tower that I bought in late 1999 and I never utilized all the bays and upgrade options available (other than a cpu upgrade), so I reluctantly bought an Intel iMac. This is the best computer I've ever owned as compared to the current offerings and prices, by far.
Ok, that is much more extensive than I thought, but ONLY because you want to get around "mirroring" mode. Your original post makes more sense now. But, at the end of this post you say you want it for midrange Macs, but all midrange macs have had multiple monitor support for at least 15 years now (such as my Intel iMac right now). What you are saying is you want multiple monitor support on entry level macs, no?
No, you have it all wrong. I am blissfully AWARE that I am NOT a prisoner of primal urges, as demonstrated by the fact that I HAVE A BRAIN, and decide when, where and how I fornicate. Animals go into heat. Humans have congnative processes that animals in heat do not possess. The fact that SOME people operate on your lame premise just goes to show how wrong "business, politics and war" can be when left in the hands of primal dolts with little capacity of controling their hormones. 532 called...they want their cavemen back.
I play in a rock band to get use out of the $10,000 worth of drums I've collected in the past 5 years. I did land a wife in there sometime too, but that probably had more to do with the fact I was her instructor and was able to invite her to one of my gigs than it did being a drummer in a crappy cover band.
Again, I argue that higher latitudes have LONGER daylight hours than equitorial countries. In England, (ca. 65th parallel) I'm exposed to approximately 17 hours of sunlight on July 21st. Being that I grew up at the 45th parallel, and have lived 10 years prior to here in Texas (don't know the parallel, because I don't think they know that means in Texas), my skin pigmentation is a mess, but probably more steeped in my Grandfather's DNA than it is my geographic location.
Geeks are good with words, but not face-to-face...hence, they come to slashdot. And good point about the gym. As an average person of average build, the thing I hate the most about trying to stay healthy (i.e. going to the gym) is that the meat-heads are all trying to prove how much stronger they are than me...which is pretty obvious by the three or four 45 lb. weights stacked on each side of their bench presses, as I put ONE 25 pounder on each side, and struggle to get through three sets of ten. But then again, I can whip their ass on a 10k or half-marathon...does that get me laid?
And at what point in human evolution do men start being attracted to women for things other than sexual dimensions? Or I'm I just too cutting-edge evolutionary man, that it hasn't happened yet (except for me).
Well, your responses are equally as moronic as this article, but at least you don't pose as a pyschologist or a professional publication.
My experience with working with middle eastern militaries, is that, since sex before marriage and jacking off are immoral, you just have ass sex with the youngest most un-willing guy in your squad (usually a kid about 16 or 17 years old). They are called "soldier #9", in case you are desperate. My question, which has never been answered, is if homosexual sex is also a sin, then how do they justify soldier #9?
Yet it is when people disagree with "facts" that they demonize it by calling it a stereotype. You could have 5 guys in a room named Nick, and state as such, and somebody will get offended that you assume everyone is named Nick and say you are just stereotyping them. Tautology or not, if 5 out of 5 guys are named Nick, then, surprise, ALL of them are named Nick. It goes both ways.
I agree about your stereotypes statement: they come from somewhere don't they? My problem is the lack of evidence and obvious oversimplification of the findings in this article. It is one thing to say that there are more black people in the NBA (because it is true), but another thing completely to say there are more black people in the NBA because they are taller, because they are from Africa and closer to the sun. Yes, I've actually heard someone say this before. Or to take this article's horsedookie into account, more black people play basketball to get laid.
#2. Your boyfriend stops trying to get into your pants, because you are fat, and obviously not fertile, so you are wasting his time, because all guys want a baby to follow 9-monnths after every sexual encounter...it is evolutionary pyschology to blame!
In my opinion, the greatest flaw of this article is that it fails to differentiate human nature from animal nature. None of my friends attempt to hook up with women in the hopes that they are fertile and will get pregnant. My neighbors horny dog, on the other hand, does (with other dogs, not women, hehe).
Great post (funny too). I think the authors have confused the term evolutionary pyschology with what the rest of us call culture. Why do men like big tits? Because Playboy magazine, hardcore porn, and Baywatch all put forth big-breasted women as the ideal woman. I'm sure in other socities the culture dictates something completely different...maybe something like German men like women with hairy armpits (to be as equaly simplistic as TFA).
Stewbacca, MAEd. (there, I hope my educational credentials make my opinion more betterer).