And we have 5 Macs (3 iMacs, 2 MacBooks/Pro) that have never been in the shop. Out of the about 30 different Mac owners that I personally know and interact with regularly, only one has had his Mac in for repairs. My anecdote is just as valid as your anecdote. Further, based on my anecdote, I can argue (just as validly as you argued) that the build quality of Macs has at least remained stable or even increased.
My point with my reply is that when we look at objective data (I'm not commenting on the quality of these data but they have to be better than your anecdote and my anecdote), Apple computers are the most reliable: http://www.rescuecom.com/2010-annual-computer-reliability-report.html
Who is to blame for that? All sides of the political spectrums: extreme environmentalists, oil and coal special interest groups, liberals, conservatives - everyone is to blame. But I think that it's not entirely correct to say if we didn't drill for oil in such deep water, then we'd have more alternatives. Maybe the causal arrow points the other way. Maybe we don't have the alternatives so we drill in deep water.
And who's to blame for killing alternatives in the 70s? Mainly the radical environmental groups. I'm not saying they are solely to blame but some of our heavy dependence on fossil fuels today is because of them.
Why is it robbery? This is a platform that didn't exist that long ago. Any sale is one more sale than they would have had otherwise. Publishers can still do subscriptions outside of the app. It's simple, if Apple takes 30%, then provide some incentives to customers to purchase the subscription outside the app (with special promos so it doesn't run afoul of Apple's app standards). But whatever. If Android is a way for businesses to make more money, they'll focus on that.
I think the bigger issue here is Apple is actually trying to protect subscriber's privacy, or at least provide easy options to do this. Content providers thrive off of this info (which is why most of us get a bunch of junk mail).
He does play a character. He's actually a very nice and balanced person in real life, regardless of what his TV/radio persona is. He's also very intelligent and has some great ideas, you just have to read some of his writings and not listen to his shows (which I don't).
The researchers controlled for childhood income (socioeconomic status {SES}) and IQ. The low self control kids were more likely than high self control kids to become single parents (58% versus 26%) and have very low income (32% versus 10%). Yes, the low self control kids were more likely to be brought up in low SES homes and were more likely to have lower IQs but the researchers controlled for that in all analyses: "Dunedin study children with greater self-control were more likely to have been brought up in socioeconomically advantaged families (r = 0.25, P
Anyway, the regression coefficients for the study are generally quite modest, but it's an interesting finding (one that's been replicated many times, actually). I would like to have seen better statistical analyses though (some multi-level modeling would have been more elegant).
If you read the research article (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/20/1010076108) - [note: open access, so you can download the pdf or read the full text online] - the researchers state the annual income was 20,000 NZD, which is roughly 15,000 USD ("For example, by adulthood, the highest and lowest fifths of the population on measured childhood self- control had respective rates of multiple health problems of 11% vs. 27%, rates of polysubstance dependence of 3% vs. 10%, rates of annual income under NZ $20,000 of 10% vs. 32%, rates of offspring reared in single-parent households of 26% vs. 58%, and crime conviction rates of 13% vs. 43%.") So yes, it was converted for an American audience.
That's because, obviously, Avatar and Titanic are the two best movies ever made. We all know performance at the box office is indicative of movie quality. I mean, look at how well Tansformers 2 did.
There has not been an "opposite" shown. That would mean that video games decrease violent behavior. A recent meta-analysis of literature showed that there was not a link between video games and aggressive behavior (Ferguson. The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly (2007)) - that does not mean that video games lead to a decrease in aggression. I have to add though that this study has some questionable methodology - I'm not saying it is bad necessarily, there were just some corrections done by the researcher that are worth questioning; i.e., studies show a link between violent video games and aggression until "bias" is corrected for.
If we go back a bit, there was one study that showed a decrease in aggression following viewing violent media (Feshbach, S., & Singer, R.D. (1971). Television and Aggression, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) but I haven't seen any replications of that experiment and one study will not counteract the findings of so many other studies. If we have 50 studies that show a link and 1 that shows the opposite, I'd give more weight to the 50 than the 1 (although the 1 could be correct).
If you want to look at some other studies we find there is a link between aggressive attitudes (but maybe not behaviors) and video games: Wei. Effects of playing violent videogames on Chinese adolescents' pro-violence attitudes, attitudes toward others, and aggressive behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior (2007)
However, this is the most important thing. It has been reliably demonstrated (e.g., Cantor. Media violence. Journal of adolescent health (2000)) for a lot of years that exposure to media violence is associated with increases in "antisocial behavior, ranging from the trivial (imitative violence directed against toys) to the serious (criminal violence), with many consequential outcomes in between (acceptance of violence as a solution to problems, increased feelings of hostility, and the apparent delivery of painful stimulation to another person)." (Cantor, 2000). This goes above and beyond what is explained by kids who are inherently more aggressive seeking out more aggressive entertainment ("there is strong evidence that the relationship between violence viewing and antisocial behavior is bidirectional"). This type of research has been going on for 40 years now (it really started with Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment). While none of these studies are perfect, there is much more evidence to suggest that exposure to violence via media (t.v., movies, and even games) can lead to an increase in aggressive thoughts and behaviors in children.
Is it worth putting a warning label on games? No, but just because the whole video game violence and aggression thing isn't popular on Slashdot, doesn't make it untrue. Anyway, as a whole there is more evidence suggesting a link between increased aggression and viewing real or simulated violence than there is against it.
Great solution. Let's arm Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and a lot of other countries equally with the U.S. It should help with any future negotiations, eh?
That's actually not entirely silly. Look at Iran and North Korea and other unstable nations like that. If all nukes (or at least tactical nukes) were outlawed, nations would still try to make them. So yes, only the outlaws would have tactical nukes.
The balance should be the same. My balances are the same in iTunes and in the Mac App Store and both go down when I purchase something from either store. The $10,000 this lady won will work in either store.
There are a lot of articles that show that. Here's one, for example: Chow et al. (2009). Individual, team, and coach predictors of players' likelihood to aggress in youth soccer. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 31, 425-443. The authors found that, "Using multilevel modeling, results demonstrated that the team norm for aggression at the athlete and team level were significant predictors of athletes' self likelihood to aggress scores. Further, coaches' game strategy efficacy emerged as a positive predictor of their players' self-described likelihood to aggress." In other words, a more aggressive team led to more individual aggressive behaviors, at least during a game. Coaches also affected their players similarly.
This area of research isn't neglected, it's just ignored by the media (most of the time) and by/.
The underlying psychological concept between aggression in sports is the same as that underlying aggression and video games - psychosocial effects on aggression. Anyway, that's getting a little off topic but there is research into exactly what you said.
One more note, I am a big gamer and I never played team sports but sports provide better "mental exercise" than playing video games do. Physical exercise is really good for the brain (it increases blood flow to the brain - permanently - which makes the brain more efficient). Exercise also decreases adverse health effects on the brain (obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure are really bad for the brain if they are not taken care of). In the long run sports (unless you get repeated concussions), are much better than video games. I'll still play video games though. they're too fun.
It's simply based on a level of processing cognitive psychology theory. Things that you have to struggle with a little bit to read or comprehend tend to be more persistent in memory. That's all this research is showing.
So that explains what's wrong with the patent office. First, they thought that Alanis' song counted as art. Second, they didn't know that only thing ironic is Alanis' lack of irony in the song.
Paten office problem solved! Just get new people in there who are a little more educated.;)
You would think that is logical but a lot of people don't care; they just want an iPhone now on Verizon/Sprint/T-mobile. I've been reading that online for the past 3 years. Most people do not think about or not aware of upgrade cycles and the rest. Most don't care about LTE either.
No, most people wouldn't. The concept of an "app" didn't really exist before Apple's use of it. Sure, there were people here and there who used it a s a shortening of application but it was not a term people generally used.
Thanks for posting that. "App" (even as a shortened form of application) did not enjoy widespread use until Apple's application of it. In fact, there is a much evidence that App is a shortening of Apple as it is application. It was simply Apple's way of being clever with a new term. Edit: I just saw that some others posted the App as shortened Apple bit.
Except that Mark Twain wasn't (as far as we know) being racist; he was including racist characters because they were/are real. You lose something of the meaning of the book by "translating" it into P.C. language.
I agree completely. Apple's 21.5-ish P/E is quite good. I know a lot of people would argue with me but for a tech stock it's very reasonable, especially one with the image of Apple. After all, stock prices are based on image almost as much as performance.
If you look at Apple's P/E ratio (21.8 is not bad), they aren't particularly overvalued at all. Apple has incredible profit margins, products that consistently perform well, and good fiscal management. They also have no debt. I'm not saying you should put all your eggs in Apple's basket (although if you did over the past 10 years or so, you'd be doing very well), but they back up their stock with great performance even in a worldwide recession.
No, search all of the major travel sites. I default to Kayak but then check other sites. Sometimes they have flights that the others do not show (this happened to me recently in booking a flight). Then, when I am ready to make the purchase, I generally go to the airlines' websites because their prices are oftentimes lower.
That's incorrect about King David. He was called a man after the Lord's heart when he was a young man; however, that does not mean that David remained so. It also doesn't mean that what he did was sanctioned by God (it wasn't). Because David had Uriah murdered and sinned with Bathsheba, he fell from God's favor. He tried to get back in God's favor but was unable to completely.
Anyway, yes the Bible does contain a lot of stuff in it.
Slashdot Mirror
And we have 5 Macs (3 iMacs, 2 MacBooks/Pro) that have never been in the shop. Out of the about 30 different Mac owners that I personally know and interact with regularly, only one has had his Mac in for repairs. My anecdote is just as valid as your anecdote. Further, based on my anecdote, I can argue (just as validly as you argued) that the build quality of Macs has at least remained stable or even increased.
My point with my reply is that when we look at objective data (I'm not commenting on the quality of these data but they have to be better than your anecdote and my anecdote), Apple computers are the most reliable: http://www.rescuecom.com/2010-annual-computer-reliability-report.html
Here are some somewhat subjective data (but still data with a larger sample size) showing Apple on top: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368167,00.asp
Maybe Apple's build quality has gone down but objective data don't seem to show that at all.
Who is to blame for that? All sides of the political spectrums: extreme environmentalists, oil and coal special interest groups, liberals, conservatives - everyone is to blame. But I think that it's not entirely correct to say if we didn't drill for oil in such deep water, then we'd have more alternatives. Maybe the causal arrow points the other way. Maybe we don't have the alternatives so we drill in deep water.
And who's to blame for killing alternatives in the 70s? Mainly the radical environmental groups. I'm not saying they are solely to blame but some of our heavy dependence on fossil fuels today is because of them.
Why is it robbery? This is a platform that didn't exist that long ago. Any sale is one more sale than they would have had otherwise. Publishers can still do subscriptions outside of the app. It's simple, if Apple takes 30%, then provide some incentives to customers to purchase the subscription outside the app (with special promos so it doesn't run afoul of Apple's app standards). But whatever. If Android is a way for businesses to make more money, they'll focus on that.
I think the bigger issue here is Apple is actually trying to protect subscriber's privacy, or at least provide easy options to do this. Content providers thrive off of this info (which is why most of us get a bunch of junk mail).
He does play a character. He's actually a very nice and balanced person in real life, regardless of what his TV/radio persona is. He's also very intelligent and has some great ideas, you just have to read some of his writings and not listen to his shows (which I don't).
The researchers controlled for childhood income (socioeconomic status {SES}) and IQ. The low self control kids were more likely than high self control kids to become single parents (58% versus 26%) and have very low income (32% versus 10%). Yes, the low self control kids were more likely to be brought up in low SES homes and were more likely to have lower IQs but the researchers controlled for that in all analyses: "Dunedin study children with greater self-control were more likely to have been brought up in socioeconomically advantaged families (r = 0.25, P
Anyway, the regression coefficients for the study are generally quite modest, but it's an interesting finding (one that's been replicated many times, actually). I would like to have seen better statistical analyses though (some multi-level modeling would have been more elegant).
If you read the research article (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/20/1010076108) - [note: open access, so you can download the pdf or read the full text online] - the researchers state the annual income was 20,000 NZD, which is roughly 15,000 USD ("For example, by adulthood, the highest and lowest fifths of the population on measured childhood self- control had respective rates of multiple health problems of 11% vs. 27%, rates of polysubstance dependence of 3% vs. 10%, rates of annual income under NZ $20,000 of 10% vs. 32%, rates of offspring reared in single-parent households of 26% vs. 58%, and crime conviction rates of 13% vs. 43%.") So yes, it was converted for an American audience.
That's because, obviously, Avatar and Titanic are the two best movies ever made. We all know performance at the box office is indicative of movie quality. I mean, look at how well Tansformers 2 did.
There has not been an "opposite" shown. That would mean that video games decrease violent behavior. A recent meta-analysis of literature showed that there was not a link between video games and aggressive behavior (Ferguson. The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly (2007)) - that does not mean that video games lead to a decrease in aggression. I have to add though that this study has some questionable methodology - I'm not saying it is bad necessarily, there were just some corrections done by the researcher that are worth questioning; i.e., studies show a link between violent video games and aggression until "bias" is corrected for.
If we go back a bit, there was one study that showed a decrease in aggression following viewing violent media (Feshbach, S., & Singer, R.D. (1971). Television and Aggression, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) but I haven't seen any replications of that experiment and one study will not counteract the findings of so many other studies. If we have 50 studies that show a link and 1 that shows the opposite, I'd give more weight to the 50 than the 1 (although the 1 could be correct).
If you want to look at some other studies we find there is a link between aggressive attitudes (but maybe not behaviors) and video games: Wei. Effects of playing violent videogames on Chinese adolescents' pro-violence attitudes, attitudes toward others, and aggressive behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior (2007)
However, this is the most important thing. It has been reliably demonstrated (e.g., Cantor. Media violence. Journal of adolescent health (2000)) for a lot of years that exposure to media violence is associated with increases in "antisocial behavior, ranging from the trivial (imitative violence directed against toys) to the serious (criminal violence), with many consequential outcomes in between (acceptance of violence as a solution to problems, increased feelings of hostility, and the apparent delivery of painful stimulation to another person)." (Cantor, 2000). This goes above and beyond what is explained by kids who are inherently more aggressive seeking out more aggressive entertainment ("there is strong evidence that the relationship between violence viewing and antisocial behavior is bidirectional"). This type of research has been going on for 40 years now (it really started with Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment). While none of these studies are perfect, there is much more evidence to suggest that exposure to violence via media (t.v., movies, and even games) can lead to an increase in aggressive thoughts and behaviors in children.
Is it worth putting a warning label on games? No, but just because the whole video game violence and aggression thing isn't popular on Slashdot, doesn't make it untrue. Anyway, as a whole there is more evidence suggesting a link between increased aggression and viewing real or simulated violence than there is against it.
Great solution. Let's arm Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and a lot of other countries equally with the U.S. It should help with any future negotiations, eh?
That's actually not entirely silly. Look at Iran and North Korea and other unstable nations like that. If all nukes (or at least tactical nukes) were outlawed, nations would still try to make them. So yes, only the outlaws would have tactical nukes.
The balance should be the same. My balances are the same in iTunes and in the Mac App Store and both go down when I purchase something from either store. The $10,000 this lady won will work in either store.
There are a lot of articles that show that. Here's one, for example: Chow et al. (2009). Individual, team, and coach predictors of players' likelihood to aggress in youth soccer. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 31, 425-443. The authors found that, "Using multilevel modeling, results demonstrated that the team norm for aggression at the athlete and team level were significant predictors of athletes' self likelihood to aggress scores. Further, coaches' game strategy efficacy emerged as a positive predictor of their players' self-described likelihood to aggress." In other words, a more aggressive team led to more individual aggressive behaviors, at least during a game. Coaches also affected their players similarly.
/.
This area of research isn't neglected, it's just ignored by the media (most of the time) and by
The underlying psychological concept between aggression in sports is the same as that underlying aggression and video games - psychosocial effects on aggression. Anyway, that's getting a little off topic but there is research into exactly what you said.
One more note, I am a big gamer and I never played team sports but sports provide better "mental exercise" than playing video games do. Physical exercise is really good for the brain (it increases blood flow to the brain - permanently - which makes the brain more efficient). Exercise also decreases adverse health effects on the brain (obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure are really bad for the brain if they are not taken care of). In the long run sports (unless you get repeated concussions), are much better than video games. I'll still play video games though. they're too fun.
It's simply based on a level of processing cognitive psychology theory. Things that you have to struggle with a little bit to read or comprehend tend to be more persistent in memory. That's all this research is showing.
So that explains what's wrong with the patent office. First, they thought that Alanis' song counted as art. Second, they didn't know that only thing ironic is Alanis' lack of irony in the song.
;)
Paten office problem solved! Just get new people in there who are a little more educated.
You would think that is logical but a lot of people don't care; they just want an iPhone now on Verizon/Sprint/T-mobile. I've been reading that online for the past 3 years. Most people do not think about or not aware of upgrade cycles and the rest. Most don't care about LTE either.
No, most people wouldn't. The concept of an "app" didn't really exist before Apple's use of it. Sure, there were people here and there who used it a s a shortening of application but it was not a term people generally used.
Thanks for posting that. "App" (even as a shortened form of application) did not enjoy widespread use until Apple's application of it. In fact, there is a much evidence that App is a shortening of Apple as it is application. It was simply Apple's way of being clever with a new term. Edit: I just saw that some others posted the App as shortened Apple bit.
Except that Mark Twain wasn't (as far as we know) being racist; he was including racist characters because they were/are real. You lose something of the meaning of the book by "translating" it into P.C. language.
Great quote but only really applicable if the government was doing the censoring.
It's already happening. I've seen at least two deals in the past week for 8 GB of DDR3 (2x4GB) for $65.
I agree completely. Apple's 21.5-ish P/E is quite good. I know a lot of people would argue with me but for a tech stock it's very reasonable, especially one with the image of Apple. After all, stock prices are based on image almost as much as performance.
If you look at Apple's P/E ratio (21.8 is not bad), they aren't particularly overvalued at all. Apple has incredible profit margins, products that consistently perform well, and good fiscal management. They also have no debt. I'm not saying you should put all your eggs in Apple's basket (although if you did over the past 10 years or so, you'd be doing very well), but they back up their stock with great performance even in a worldwide recession.
No, search all of the major travel sites. I default to Kayak but then check other sites. Sometimes they have flights that the others do not show (this happened to me recently in booking a flight). Then, when I am ready to make the purchase, I generally go to the airlines' websites because their prices are oftentimes lower.
That's incorrect about King David. He was called a man after the Lord's heart when he was a young man; however, that does not mean that David remained so. It also doesn't mean that what he did was sanctioned by God (it wasn't). Because David had Uriah murdered and sinned with Bathsheba, he fell from God's favor. He tried to get back in God's favor but was unable to completely.
Anyway, yes the Bible does contain a lot of stuff in it.