I believe in the benefits of Educational Pyschology, as long as it is devoted to understanding HOW humans learn, and doesn't delve into stupid pointless diversions like why Johnny tries to get his hands down Julies panties at the school dance, or why Freddie brings a gun to school and kills 20 classmates. Maybe it is just the negative connotations associated with the "pseudo-science" of psychology, but there is a place for it...just this article surely doesn't make a very good point for it though.
of course evolutionary psychology is legit! We have no capacity to operate this brain thing in our head at all, and are merely slaves to 1000 year old urges. I blame my great-great-great-great-great cavedwelling Grandfather, don't you?
The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities.
Me name Zog. Me zugzug your woman. Me big strong...me get laid, you not!
Who came up with this drivel? The last time I checked, MOST couples are kinda fat, kinda ugly, don't have a lot of money, and are having way more sex with each other than that average looking guy trying to hook up with the hot woman. Ugly people need loving too, as do small people, as do geeks. Everyone has a match, and this concept of bigger man gets the action is lame. If only the biggest and prettiest people are mating, how do you explain, well, the American South, or England? (Ok, that was a joke, don't kill me).
Just because you have to use an adapter doesn't mean it won't do dual screen. I have to use an adapter for my MacBook, but I don't count that against the computer. Not able to display dual screen would mean the OS doesn't support it (hasn't been true for 20+ years) or that the video hardware doesn't support it (also not true for many years). A teacher I work with is running a Dell 20" and his 42" plasma tv with his mini. What exactly do you mean by a video splitter, or 2nd monitor by default; maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
Well, if you bought a 20" iMac, you'd have TWO 20" monitors that can display either an extended desktop, or in mirrored mode. I'm not sure why the fact you already own a screen would prevent you from buying something else? For me, if someone told me to use my existing 20" monitor and buy, for example, a Mac mini, I'd look at them crazy, go buy an iMac, and have two monitors.
Not to get too far off-topic here, but my 20" iMac with the 256mb upgraded video card plays the one game I play (World of Warcraft) at above 30fps with everything maxed out. That sealed it for me. More hard-core games don't run "maxed out" but do run just fine (in bootcamp mode mostly).
You might be a bit "off on this" only in that I think you have a bias against the capability of mobile chip sets. The problem with your logic is that there simply isn't any recognizable speed difference with a tower as compared to what they can pack inside of the iMac. I'd put a MacBook pro up against nearly any comparably priced tower anyday. Although the tower will be slightly faster in every aspect, you can't quite take your tower to Starbucks and surf the wireless web there.
If you want upgradeability, then this isn't your machine, but a lot of people use their machines until the next great thing comes out, then just buy a new one. I've sold so many old Macs on Ebay I've lost count. My old PCs are generally give aways, since nobody will spend any money on an old PC. With Macs, you at least get a good bit of your investment back. I have an 8 year old G4 tower that I bought for the upgradeability, but the only thing I've ever upgraded is a bought an 800mhz chip and swapped out the 350. It didn't do much for the computer, as by the time I upgraded it to 800mhz G4, Pentium and AMD chips where well above the 3.0ghz speed range (and G5 chips where above 2, I believe). Besides, by the time I upgraded my chip, all the other guts have been woefully outdated, when compared to modern machines.
Actually, it doesn't glow when the computer is on. It does pulse when the computer is asleep though, and does come on when you turn it on, but it goes away quickly thereafter.
I know a couple people with Mac-minis, and although they are good little machines, most people can't justify the cost of a space-saving, mostly quiet mini, when they can spend a few hundred dollars more and get an iMac that is faster, has more storage, better video, etc. I'm willing to bet that it is easy to spend MORE on a mini, depending on the peripherals you choose. I suppose, though, if $600 is the absolute maximum you can afford, and you already have a keyboard and monitor, the mini is targeted for you. Again, though, this is rarely an issue for the "Apple Brand" consumer. Most people worried about barely being able to affording a computer are off buying $295 Dell machines with $150 worth of rebates and just dealing with Windows. A car analogy would be the fact that BMW and Daimler-Benz don't make economy cars, although I wish they did.
The deal-breaker for me is the price point is too close to the 17" iMac. Even though I know I'll never upgrade anything in my iMac, I am quite sure that it will have a much longer usability than a mini would.
Hmmm, you might have defective platic? I've owned my iMac for 7 months now and I've never cleaned it, and it looks fine. I have cleaned the screen though, using a product from the Apple store that is marketed for the laptop screens. Works great!
My MacBook, on the other hand, has a bit of that reported yellowing problem. It is on the right and left side of the track pad, so I just thought it was dirt from our hands. I looked around, and Apple is replacing the plastic casing under warranty. I haven't heard, but maybe the same thing is going on with your iMac?
There is an additional USB port on your keyboard, which is much closer than the front of your computer. The only problem is it isn't a powered USB port, so I don't know if your flash drive would work or not.
Uh, have you noticed lately that even Mac-bashers like yourself have started acknowledging the legitimacy of OS X and the Mac hardware? Either your are 14 or you are stuck in 1998?
If they were aiming for the living room, my iMac would contain the core features of the MacTV, without me needing to spend another $300 on hardware. Another way of looking at it is why would I spend $300 on a wireless hard drive that sits closer to my tv than my iMac does?
I only recently bought my iMac, so I'm glad these changes are so miniscule, unlike those unlucky bastards who bought G5 iMacs...
Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I'm in a rush. 2008 will be the year of OS X, not Linux. Just wanted to be on the record, so in 2009 I can point back to this post:-)
Enough with the moronic 'American's have it good' blather.
But you have proven the "American's (sic) have it good" sentiment in your post. I'm not saying that gas is cheaper in America pre-tax, because the bottom-line is all that counts, and Americans, myself included, have no room to bitch about ridiculously low taxation either. I'm just pointing out, that I am an American and I've lived in Germany and England, and the high prices (due to taxation) are the norm througout the Western world. My original post states that even with $7.50 gallon gas, Brits still drive around just as much as they do if there were $2.50 gallon gas like in the States, because people like their cars and the convenience of cars. Proof is in the pudding, so feel free to check any of the roundabouts in Harrogate at anytime between 2:30-6:30, and tell me less people drive cars here. And this is the North of England, where congestion and population is way lower than down South.
You've all got it so very wrong. People don't want 50mpg death traps. If they did, the greedy car companies would be making them en masse, and charging a pretty penny. As it stands now, only the hybrid crowd is stupid enough to be raked over the coals for better fuel efficiency. Until the consumers start demanding higher mileage cars, the automakers will keep producing what sells. For the record, my car is a 200 hp V6 that gets shitty gas mileage, and I love everything about it. If my car got 30 mpg and still made 200 hp, I'd be happy, but since I understand the inverse correlation between hp and mpg (i.e, more horsepower ALWAYS equals less mpg), I have sided with a reasonable amount of horsepower and acceptable mpg tradeoff.
He didn't assume anything. He even said he rode a bike SEVEN miles to work, which I wouldn't consider close (you may think differently, until your fat a$$ tries to ride 14 miles a day on a bike, in the cold and rain, none-the-less). Poor people can get their poor paying jobs ANYWHERE. Washing dishes at that Chinese restauraunt 20 miles away cramping your style? Try washing dishes at the one across the street. It's the sweet paying specialty jobs that are limited to specific geographic locales, and those pay well enough that you can drive your BMW to work 40 miles a day.
Actually, with increased gas prices, and increased shipping prices, it would ENCOURAGE more local production and consumption. I would suggest this is a *good thing*.
Dude, no way. Gas here in England is about $7.50 per gallon and my commute is about 8 miles one way each day. I'm from Texas, and my commute was about 12 miles (but could be more in a bigger city). In Texas, since gas was frequently around $2.50, that means I'd have to drive 3x as much in the States to pay as much as I do for gas in England. Not to mention, in England, I spend more time stuck in traffic and being diverted for some slackasses lorry driver's inability to drive, wrecking on the main road, and holding half of a country hostage to the dreaded "queue".
Even if my commute in Texas were 3x as long, it would most likely be 3-lane of empty highway, with my cruise control set, and my car getting peak mileage. I spend more time in first and second gear here in the UK in one day than I do an entire month in Texas.
Not a troll because he stated his point very well, and even was a bit apologetic about the plight of the poor. If you are poor, you have to make certain sacrifices, no? Why not start with your dependancy on a car, if you are poor? I know plenty of people, who are by no means poor, who rely on public transportation just fine. So poor people have to drive their kids around, I suppose? Maybe they should of thought of that before having more children than they can afford? Condoms are pretty cheap, I hear, as is not having sex. I can attest that not having sex is incredibly cheap, by the way. i saved lots of money for many years that way;-)... I hope to never understand what you are talking about, by the way...(How about that TROLL for ya?)
So the wife/husband drives the SUV to work by themselves, when they get home its hauling kids, the dog, going on camping trips, taking the neighbors kids to the ball game, etc... you don't see that yet in your selfish world you still want to pass judgement.
Except for the fact that people aren't actually using their SUVs in the way you state and only say so as to validate their purchase. Most people say they like how high the ride or how safe they feel, not the fact they can go camping.
Actually, it won't stop ME from buying more gas, and I'm not arguing for the conservation of fuel. I want it to be too expensive for people to operate stupidly oversized vehicles is all.
Slashdot Mirror
Northerners have more daylight hours in the summer months than equatorial countries, so no, Northerners don't necessarily get less sun.
I believe in the benefits of Educational Pyschology, as long as it is devoted to understanding HOW humans learn, and doesn't delve into stupid pointless diversions like why Johnny tries to get his hands down Julies panties at the school dance, or why Freddie brings a gun to school and kills 20 classmates. Maybe it is just the negative connotations associated with the "pseudo-science" of psychology, but there is a place for it...just this article surely doesn't make a very good point for it though.
of course evolutionary psychology is legit! We have no capacity to operate this brain thing in our head at all, and are merely slaves to 1000 year old urges. I blame my great-great-great-great-great cavedwelling Grandfather, don't you?
Who came up with this drivel? The last time I checked, MOST couples are kinda fat, kinda ugly, don't have a lot of money, and are having way more sex with each other than that average looking guy trying to hook up with the hot woman. Ugly people need loving too, as do small people, as do geeks. Everyone has a match, and this concept of bigger man gets the action is lame. If only the biggest and prettiest people are mating, how do you explain, well, the American South, or England? (Ok, that was a joke, don't kill me).
Just because you have to use an adapter doesn't mean it won't do dual screen. I have to use an adapter for my MacBook, but I don't count that against the computer. Not able to display dual screen would mean the OS doesn't support it (hasn't been true for 20+ years) or that the video hardware doesn't support it (also not true for many years). A teacher I work with is running a Dell 20" and his 42" plasma tv with his mini. What exactly do you mean by a video splitter, or 2nd monitor by default; maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
Well, if you bought a 20" iMac, you'd have TWO 20" monitors that can display either an extended desktop, or in mirrored mode. I'm not sure why the fact you already own a screen would prevent you from buying something else? For me, if someone told me to use my existing 20" monitor and buy, for example, a Mac mini, I'd look at them crazy, go buy an iMac, and have two monitors.
Not to get too far off-topic here, but my 20" iMac with the 256mb upgraded video card plays the one game I play (World of Warcraft) at above 30fps with everything maxed out. That sealed it for me. More hard-core games don't run "maxed out" but do run just fine (in bootcamp mode mostly).
If you want upgradeability, then this isn't your machine, but a lot of people use their machines until the next great thing comes out, then just buy a new one. I've sold so many old Macs on Ebay I've lost count. My old PCs are generally give aways, since nobody will spend any money on an old PC. With Macs, you at least get a good bit of your investment back. I have an 8 year old G4 tower that I bought for the upgradeability, but the only thing I've ever upgraded is a bought an 800mhz chip and swapped out the 350. It didn't do much for the computer, as by the time I upgraded it to 800mhz G4, Pentium and AMD chips where well above the 3.0ghz speed range (and G5 chips where above 2, I believe). Besides, by the time I upgraded my chip, all the other guts have been woefully outdated, when compared to modern machines.
Actually, it doesn't glow when the computer is on. It does pulse when the computer is asleep though, and does come on when you turn it on, but it goes away quickly thereafter.
The deal-breaker for me is the price point is too close to the 17" iMac. Even though I know I'll never upgrade anything in my iMac, I am quite sure that it will have a much longer usability than a mini would.
Has Apple made a computer in the past 15 years that doesn't do multiple monitors?
My MacBook, on the other hand, has a bit of that reported yellowing problem. It is on the right and left side of the track pad, so I just thought it was dirt from our hands. I looked around, and Apple is replacing the plastic casing under warranty. I haven't heard, but maybe the same thing is going on with your iMac?
There is an additional USB port on your keyboard, which is much closer than the front of your computer. The only problem is it isn't a powered USB port, so I don't know if your flash drive would work or not.
Uh, have you noticed lately that even Mac-bashers like yourself have started acknowledging the legitimacy of OS X and the Mac hardware? Either your are 14 or you are stuck in 1998?
I only recently bought my iMac, so I'm glad these changes are so miniscule, unlike those unlucky bastards who bought G5 iMacs...
Enjoy your 1000 years...enabler.
Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I'm in a rush. 2008 will be the year of OS X, not Linux. Just wanted to be on the record, so in 2009 I can point back to this post :-)
You've all got it so very wrong. People don't want 50mpg death traps. If they did, the greedy car companies would be making them en masse, and charging a pretty penny. As it stands now, only the hybrid crowd is stupid enough to be raked over the coals for better fuel efficiency. Until the consumers start demanding higher mileage cars, the automakers will keep producing what sells. For the record, my car is a 200 hp V6 that gets shitty gas mileage, and I love everything about it. If my car got 30 mpg and still made 200 hp, I'd be happy, but since I understand the inverse correlation between hp and mpg (i.e, more horsepower ALWAYS equals less mpg), I have sided with a reasonable amount of horsepower and acceptable mpg tradeoff.
He didn't assume anything. He even said he rode a bike SEVEN miles to work, which I wouldn't consider close (you may think differently, until your fat a$$ tries to ride 14 miles a day on a bike, in the cold and rain, none-the-less). Poor people can get their poor paying jobs ANYWHERE. Washing dishes at that Chinese restauraunt 20 miles away cramping your style? Try washing dishes at the one across the street. It's the sweet paying specialty jobs that are limited to specific geographic locales, and those pay well enough that you can drive your BMW to work 40 miles a day.
Actually, with increased gas prices, and increased shipping prices, it would ENCOURAGE more local production and consumption. I would suggest this is a *good thing*.
Even if my commute in Texas were 3x as long, it would most likely be 3-lane of empty highway, with my cruise control set, and my car getting peak mileage. I spend more time in first and second gear here in the UK in one day than I do an entire month in Texas.
Not a troll because he stated his point very well, and even was a bit apologetic about the plight of the poor. If you are poor, you have to make certain sacrifices, no? Why not start with your dependancy on a car, if you are poor? I know plenty of people, who are by no means poor, who rely on public transportation just fine. So poor people have to drive their kids around, I suppose? Maybe they should of thought of that before having more children than they can afford? Condoms are pretty cheap, I hear, as is not having sex. I can attest that not having sex is incredibly cheap, by the way. i saved lots of money for many years that way ;-) ... I hope to never understand what you are talking about, by the way...(How about that TROLL for ya?)
Actually, it won't stop ME from buying more gas, and I'm not arguing for the conservation of fuel. I want it to be too expensive for people to operate stupidly oversized vehicles is all.