This is how it works in practice (at least for psychologists and sociologists):
1. You have some definition based on some theory or hypothesis or something. You have to argue why your definition is meaningful and relevant.
2. You try to operationalize (i.e. turn it from a fuzzy concept into something measurable) that definition as best you can while always keeping an eye out for and discussing – at length – any and all limitations you can think of (of which there will always be many).
3. You use your operationalization to create measures.
4. You collect data with your measures, analyze and interpret it.
So there really isn’t much of a need to explicitly differentiate between intelligence and IQ in scientific writing. You might want to for the sake of clarity, but that difference is always implicit.
It’s always clear (at least to other psychologists or sociologists) that when the author is writing about empirical results with regards to intelligence, she means intelligence as previously defined by her, with her operationalization and determined by her measures and analytical techniques.
When I write about my little presence (= the sense of being somewhere, even if you are not actually there, e.g. when you are in a virtual environment) questionnaire I do not write “Presence Index Score” when I write about my results (at least not every time) – I will mostly just write “presence”. That I’m actually talking about the “Presence Index Score” is implicit.
But you are right – that difference is not obvious to anyone else and can, at times, even be confusing for experts.
That seems like an excellent trade-off to me, a prime example of how Apple is great at picking the right trade-offs.
All what you said is completely irrelevant for the vast majority of people. So Apple doesn’t trade it off against the increased convenience both Spotlight and Versions give you.
How that? Android would be 183°, iOS would be 122°, RIM would be 32°. You could easily see that Android is slightly above 50% – but I’m not really sure how the iOS marketshare would look markedly different.
Since 50% isn’t really a very important threshold (though that could be argued) I would very much argue against using a pie chart. (I prefer areas or lengths to angles.) Plus, a pie chart wouldn’t make it easy to add platform subdivisions.
It’s quite astonishing that so many people here prefer readability over correctness. What is wrong with you? Readability is optional. Correctness is not.
That’s obviously the wrong tradeoff. Never outright manipulate your data to make it more readable! If you can’t make your data readable enough without manipulating it you just can’t present your data that way. Period. Find a better way.
(I do not think there is any malice involved, though. Just pure stupidity. I mean, look at the amount of people around here arguing for readability over correctness. If they are out here, some are also working for Nielsen.)
Fashion can't be trademarked or copyrighted. You can slavishly copy a Chanel handbag if you don't also copy the logo. That's why many expensive brands use their logos in patterns on their handbags.
So you completely agree that it's possible to replace the battery in a working rMBP and that it is not in any way permanently affixed to the case? The rest are irrelevant (for the purpose of this discussion) implementation details.
But Apple knew about the consequence beforehand. It’s easy to predict. (I would expect that even companies which are not all that competent can foresee something simple like that.) I really doubt that’s the reason.
I would be interested in your source for that. Batteries are already made of very many different materials, it’s not as though glue is some sort of special material. (The label of, say, AAA batteries is glued to the metal container. The label of the Li-Ion battery of my Nokia phone is also glued to the plastic container. Maybe Apple uses a bit more glue – but glue shouldn’t be something completely new in battery recycling.)
I don’t see this as positive PR by any stretch of the imagination. This looks like Apple wanted to naughty things, got caught and had to reverse direction. Not positive.
If any conspiracy theory is plausible at all then it’s that they wanted to make EPEAT be more willing to change their standards – but I would imagine that even that is something you would rather do behind closed doors (maybe they did and it didn’t work).
(Not at all relevant to recycling, but $200 ain’t a bad price. You can expect to pay about $150 for batteries from other manufacturers, and those are often not as high-quality batteries. Batteries are expensive. In general, not just from Apple. It just sucks that you have to send your damn laptop in and not be able to access it for some time.
Hm, I tend to think Apple (or any company, really) is clever enough to foresee the obvious consequences of policy changes.
This is one of those. Apple knew that certain government agencies are required to purchase only EPEAT certified hardware. They knew they would lose that business. And they nevertheless decided for the change, knowing that consequence.
That leads me to think that Apple changed direction because of other consequences they did not expect and (apparently) could not predict, in this case the public outrage.
I’m not sure, I think laptops have become longer lasting, more appliance like. I think that’s a very positive thing for the majority of people.
The only big issue I see is the battery which will definitely break. Those things have a limited lifetime (shorter than, say, five years you at least would want your laptop to make it) and there is nothing you can change about that.
1. You have some definition based on some theory or hypothesis or something. You have to argue why your definition is meaningful and relevant.
2. You try to operationalize (i.e. turn it from a fuzzy concept into something measurable) that definition as best you can while always keeping an eye out for and discussing – at length – any and all limitations you can think of (of which there will always be many).
3. You use your operationalization to create measures.
4. You collect data with your measures, analyze and interpret it.
So there really isn’t much of a need to explicitly differentiate between intelligence and IQ in scientific writing. You might want to for the sake of clarity, but that difference is always implicit.
It’s always clear (at least to other psychologists or sociologists) that when the author is writing about empirical results with regards to intelligence, she means intelligence as previously defined by her, with her operationalization and determined by her measures and analytical techniques.
When I write about my little presence (= the sense of being somewhere, even if you are not actually there, e.g. when you are in a virtual environment) questionnaire I do not write “Presence Index Score” when I write about my results (at least not every time) – I will mostly just write “presence”. That I’m actually talking about the “Presence Index Score” is implicit.
But you are right – that difference is not obvious to anyone else and can, at times, even be confusing for experts.