Review roundup: New iMac display and redesigned chassis shine, audio a step back - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaelian 

Nope, you told me to educate myself, which implies that I'm ignorant.

Apparently you have no sense of humor, either.

Well, that's a list of recognized fallacies. But, you are right, not being on the list doesn't mean something isn't a fallacy. On the other hand, if you are claiming something, reductio ad absurdum in this case, is a fallacy, despite no one recognizing it as such (but yourself, of course), the onus is on you to prove it is, not me to prove it's not. Have at it. I'll get some popcorn.

Does anybody know if the GPU and/or CPU are throttled down on these iMacs?

I've been looking at the retina MBPs, and there are lots of people saying that their GPUs are throttled down to 70-80% of their manufacturer's standard specs - probably due to the aesthetics/design of the casing making heat a serious problem.

With the thin size and heavy reliance on glue in the new iMacs, can we expect that Apple again has neutered the hardware in favour of aesthetics? I'm actually interested in replacing my '09 iMac, but am a bit leery about paying for current hardware that's been throttled so that it more resembles year-old or 2-year-old hardware...

Originally Posted by Superbass 
Does anybody know if the GPU and/or CPU are throttled down on these iMacs?

I bet the GPU is, at least in the lower models. They've done that many times before. The CPU specifically overclocks itself, so there'd be no reason to downclock it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaelian 


I have already demonstrated why in those cases it is a fallacy. It is not recognized as a fallacy as a general rule, because it's not always a fallacy; that, however, doesn't mean it is never a fallacy. I did state examples of reduction to absurdity as a fallacy when used in straw man arguments or non-sequitors such as inferences from the particular to the statistical, and sometimes even from the particular to the particular without establishing the parallel through the general (flawed analogies).

Reductio ad absurdum is never a fallacy, it's a specific, valid, method of argument. The straw man fallacy isn't a fallacious argument because it involves using a reductio method of argument. It's fallacious because it involves applying what may be a perfectly valid argument to a position that isn't actually the position you are attempting to refute, but is represented as the same. An instance of a straw man fallacy doesn't even have to involve a reductio argument.