anonymous1234

You realize you can get laptops with more power than an iPad for less than $500, right? Nobody was comparing them to overpriced Macbooks.

What's the point of having that large of a resolution on a tiny tablet screen? There's no reason you currently need anything better than 1080p on a portable device.

Children (non-adults, under 18) by law cannot own property. It doesn't matter who payed for the laptop, if it was a gift, or even if somehow she built it out of sand herself. Legally, her parents own everything she has. Does it include a right to withdraw a child's funds from their bank accounts if they so wish - regardless of who earned it? Yes.

This. For the love of God this. A general rule of thumb, if every person and object is labeled with "le", leave it at 9gag. Oh good, I thought it was just me that found those moranic. I'm glad I'm not alone

The father had every right to destroy that laptop, by why would he waste that money like that? He could have simply sold the laptop or given it to a friend or relative that could use one.

Oh haha putting "le" in front of everything is so funny, right?

Nobody said that speed and percent correct were perfectly replaceable, but if one person gets a 75% trying their best in say, 1 hour, while another person tries their best and gets 75% in 20 minutes, why shouldn't it be considered that because they were able to think at the same level at a quicker pace that they are more intelligent?

I think some people have the notion that IQ tests can't be prepared for and therefore are unfair. This is the entire point! The test taker is faced with new challenges that have no encountered before and must then respond and adjust their thinking as quickly as possible. This ability to think both critically and quickly without prior knowledge is what is being tested. I know this from experience. The SAT is easy because you know exactly what will be asked and practice classes and tests are abundant. Also, reading and math are things that are practiced every day and therefore are comparatively easy to the IQ test. Of course, on the other hand, one test can't be a perfect measure of all facets of intelligence, but the critical thinking is what is focused upon. Being slow isn't a flaw that the IQ test doesn't address, it's a flaw that the test takes advantage of. Same with anxiety. If being forced to think under pressure gives you anxiety and hurts your test results, it's for good reason. The best thinkers of our time were those that kept trucking along even through hardship and the infliction of massive amounts of stress and responsibility.

It's about 50/50 with the action and the teenage girl fanservice. If you ignore the parts that endlessly describe irrelevant details then the book is actually quite good in itself. Catching Fire isn't as good because of a greater amount of the fanservice, but I thought it was decent. I haven't read the third book but plan to.

I've never read the Freakonomics books, how would you describe them? Is it pretty simple reading or something really profound? It's written in a prose that could be understood by the common folk, not just students of Economics. In other words, the lack of esoteric language makes it an easy read for the masses. There's a lot of tongue in cheek humour, especially in the metaphors they use, and it goes about illustrating their points without the mundane repetition that exists in far too many books. You could also argue that it gives you a different perspective by viewing Economics as a process as opposed to an academic discipline. It introduces you to Economics through a discussion about patriotic prostitutes, suicide bombers, and 'global cooling'. I believe, since it's an international bestseller, that you can pick one up at the library. It may or may not appeal to you, but I know that it appeals to me. All right, so it isn't what I thought it was. I'll probably end up reading it anyway. Thanks for the help!

I've never read the Freakonomics books, how would you describe them? Is it pretty simple reading or something really profound?

Nice ping, I'm jealous.

What game is it? Integrated graphics aren't exactly stellar.

Just finished 1984, I have to say it was one of the more quality books that I have read. I definitely recommend this book to anyone who thinks they have the attention span or the comprehension.

But you're totally okay with heterosexual men doing so? Doesn't that violate the guy code, regardless if you're gay or not? I think the whole idea of being offended by a gay male observing one's genitalia is based on the notion that said homosexual would actually enjoy the view, which is rather conceited.

"Please don't, please don't." The guy said that so calmly it was almost humorous. Clearly the man was not looking to kill anybody though, as even after being shot at he just fired rounds off randomly in their general direction to scare them.

Oblivion and Fallout 3. And I wouldn't say either are an RPG version of Call of Duty, that would be putting them to shame.

Oh, I see, I thought that menu was for multiplayer only. Thanks!

I got Halo 3 a few days ago and I beat the campaign in under 2 days. It wasn't short, which is good, but now I can't figure out how to select a mission. Help please?

I'm INTJ as well, but this questions were inaccurate by only offering "yes" or "no." For example, I'm highly introverted, but I actually prefer large crowds over small groups of people because it takes the attention off of me.

I'm looking to get a few games that are single player oriented, for the Xbox 360, although the Wii is fine too. The last game I got was Fallout 3, which I enjoyed thoroughly for its massive amount of content. I ordered TES: Oblivion today, because I read that it is essentially the medieval-fantasy counterpart to Fallout 3, with over 200 hours of gameplay. I'm interested in games like this, that I can play by myself for dozens of hours without needing Xbox Live.

Shouldn't be banned, but if clearly visible health risk warnings aren't already in place, they should be.

And I thought it was Columbus day (In America, at least). I guess I need a new calendar.

[hide] Morally, no. My morals say yes. And I patently disagree. Goddamn. run4runes, you need to consider their position and put yourself in their shoes. Let's say you didn't pay this fee, should you just stand and watch helplessly as they don't hose your house down and watch it all burn? Would you LIKE that? You really can't say for sure unless you put yourself into the situation. Morally, it was not a good reason to just watch the house burn. [/hide]Assuming I didn't pay the fee (which I would have), I would not like it at all if they let my house burn down. I would certainly be furious with the fire department. It's human nature of people to push their morals on others, but then not accept the same consequences when it affects them. However, as I stated previously, there should have been an option implemented to pay a heavy fine to have the fire put out. No such option was in place, and it was this carelessness of the local government that allowed the Fire Department to stand by idly.