That's special pleading, dude. You're effectively claiming that I'm ignorant in order to attempt to subvert the discussion.
Actually, I'm claiming that you could make yourself not ignorant in less time than it took you to write your last post. I'm pleading with you to do so. But, here, I'll help you along since you apparently have an aversion to search engines:
Here's an article with a list of 208 fallacies, which you should note does not contain reductio ad absurdum: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
It's good reading for everyone, but I particularly recommend it to you. If you want more sources, do some simple searches and you'll find more than anyone has time to read. But, even consulting, say, the first page of results, you'll find that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, not a fallacy.
Actually, I'm claiming that you could make yourself not ignorant in less time than it took you to write your last post. I'm pleading with you to do so. But, here, I'll help you along since you apparently have an aversion to search engines:
Nope, you told me to educate myself, which implies that I'm ignorant.
Here's an article with a list of 208 fallacies, which you should note does not contain reductio ad absurdum: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Since when have all fallacies have to be confined to the set of common patterns in that list? It's kind of the third time I'm pointing this out, but you seem to keep ignoring it for some reason... At most with that list you can try to prove that something IS a fallacy, but you can not try to prove that something is NOT, which is your claim.
It's good reading for everyone, but I particularly recommend it to you. If you want more sources, do some simple searches and you'll find more than anyone has time to read. But, even consulting, say, the first page of results, you'll find that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, not a fallacy.
No, actually what I want is actual proof of your claims, which none of the above is.
Nope, you told me to educate myself, which implies that I'm ignorant.
Apparently you have no sense of humor, either.
Quote:
Since when have all fallacies have to be confined to the set of common patterns in that list?
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...
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.
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.
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).
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.
Meh, Ive needs to get over his thin fetish. It's a desktop, you sit in front of it and use it to do things. No matter if there is a half inch or a whole foot behind the display, the user is not aware of it. Except of course when he has to access a port for an SD card or flash drive - another instance of form over function. Now what rational designer would put all the ports on the back of the iMac? I suspect Ive does not use an iMac, or at least he does not use it for more than email and web surfing.
So we have a thin work of art amidst a brood of external drives with a rat's nest of cables. How is that beautiful? How is that even an all-in-one? If someone wants to use Time Machine - a basic feature of OS X - with seperate physical HDD, then the iMac is no longer an all-in-one, is it? It's thin computer with an external HDD enclosure.
You know what would be beautiful, Mr. Ive? A two inch thick iMac with proper cooling and three HDD bays accessable externally, with space for two internal SSDs. Or Ive could get creative and put the internals on a base, while mounting the display on an adjustable stalk above it. Whatever he does, an iMac that was truly an all-in-one would be most beautiful. And stop making people bend over behind their desk just to insert a flash drive!
And put a freakin' Blu-ray drive in it! Am I the only one who cares about video quality? Those downloads from iTunes are not made small with lossless compression, and the difference is crystal clear if you view one next to a Blu-ray version. I thought Apple users were discerning sorts who cared about quality? How about those who don't live where they can get broadband, or at least broadband without caps? I'm in a rural area, and being a knowledgable Mac user I do tech support for several neighbors and friends (all of whom I converted to using Macs). None of us even have the option of streaming low quality movies from iTunes. Sure we can just buy an external player, but then our not-all-in-one iMacs have two external enclosures: time machine drive and ODD. Now the desk space used is approaching that of a small tower computer. So much for Ive's thin fetish.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
That's special pleading, dude. You're effectively claiming that I'm ignorant in order to attempt to subvert the discussion.
Actually, I'm claiming that you could make yourself not ignorant in less time than it took you to write your last post. I'm pleading with you to do so. But, here, I'll help you along since you apparently have an aversion to search engines:
Here's an explanation of reductio ad absurdum: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
Here's an article with a list of 208 fallacies, which you should note does not contain reductio ad absurdum: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
It's good reading for everyone, but I particularly recommend it to you. If you want more sources, do some simple searches and you'll find more than anyone has time to read. But, even consulting, say, the first page of results, you'll find that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, not a fallacy.
Nope, you told me to educate myself, which implies that I'm ignorant.
I see nothing in there stating that it can not be a fallacy, so how does that prove your point?
Since when have all fallacies have to be confined to the set of common patterns in that list? It's kind of the third time I'm pointing this out, but you seem to keep ignoring it for some reason... At most with that list you can try to prove that something IS a fallacy, but you can not try to prove that something is NOT, which is your claim.
No, actually what I want is actual proof of your claims, which none of the above is.
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.
Quote:
Since when have all fallacies have to be confined to the set of common patterns in that list?
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.
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).
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.
Meh, Ive needs to get over his thin fetish. It's a desktop, you sit in front of it and use it to do things. No matter if there is a half inch or a whole foot behind the display, the user is not aware of it. Except of course when he has to access a port for an SD card or flash drive - another instance of form over function. Now what rational designer would put all the ports on the back of the iMac? I suspect Ive does not use an iMac, or at least he does not use it for more than email and web surfing.
So we have a thin work of art amidst a brood of external drives with a rat's nest of cables. How is that beautiful? How is that even an all-in-one? If someone wants to use Time Machine - a basic feature of OS X - with seperate physical HDD, then the iMac is no longer an all-in-one, is it? It's thin computer with an external HDD enclosure.
You know what would be beautiful, Mr. Ive? A two inch thick iMac with proper cooling and three HDD bays accessable externally, with space for two internal SSDs. Or Ive could get creative and put the internals on a base, while mounting the display on an adjustable stalk above it. Whatever he does, an iMac that was truly an all-in-one would be most beautiful. And stop making people bend over behind their desk just to insert a flash drive!
And put a freakin' Blu-ray drive in it! Am I the only one who cares about video quality? Those downloads from iTunes are not made small with lossless compression, and the difference is crystal clear if you view one next to a Blu-ray version. I thought Apple users were discerning sorts who cared about quality? How about those who don't live where they can get broadband, or at least broadband without caps? I'm in a rural area, and being a knowledgable Mac user I do tech support for several neighbors and friends (all of whom I converted to using Macs). None of us even have the option of streaming low quality movies from iTunes. Sure we can just buy an external player, but then our not-all-in-one iMacs have two external enclosures: time machine drive and ODD. Now the desk space used is approaching that of a small tower computer. So much for Ive's thin fetish.