BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Macs can now do Windows and gaming

It's not only Macs that are capable of virtualisation. Linux-based OSs can run Windows in VirtualBox or VMWare, and equally can be set up to dual-boot easily. Just because Macs 'can do' something doesn't mean they are better at it. Virtualisation is not 'easier in Mac's VMWare' because it is the same software. This point is ridiculous, trolling and fanboyish. WINE is a completely different kettle of fish, as it attempts something else than virtualisation. Yes, it is a pain. So dual-boot instead. Something Macs and Linux are equally - that is, neither one better than the other - capable of. High end Windows machines allow you to put in new components as you see fit, including dedicated physics cards, dual, triple or even quad graphics cards - something you physically cannot do on an iMac - to give the best performance possible, better than on a Mac. The fussiest of gamers wants complete control over his system, and so will opt for hardware he can choose, not hardware Steve Jobs chooses for him. The Yes arguement is hilarious. Being one of the many dedicated computer gamers I have looked at purchasing a Macintosh time and time again for their battery life only to be dissapointed by their hardware. The latest ones finaly have dedicated graphics ram, however its a meager 1 gigabyte for 2 thousand 5 hundred. not including tax. Between choosing to go to Disney World and purchase a laptop with the same specs (albeit 3 hour battery life), I would choose the laptop. Unfortunately for me quad Sli 590's are the only satisfaction for my triple monitor setup. Something that Mac's, even with thunderbolt port lack. It's hilarious to see gamers with Macintoshes playing with their pitiful touchpad. Free kills though so I wont be complaining ever. Windows gaming is a subject that should be invalidated as I have not seen any MLG or GSL players even touch a Macintosh. Microsoft will allways dominate the hardcore PC gaming market. The reason being that Direct X is ridicoulously superior to Open GL. It's the main reason DW and Pixar are migrating (albeit slowly) to PC's. Quad SLI's increase work thoughtput tenfold for the same cost.
We need specialists; because no one person can amass general knowledge on everything and some how manage to give/share/retain crucial, expert and detailed data as well.

"Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase):"I can only research what I do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focussed individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb to the moon." This illustrates the point that our societies level of knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the information available to us."-[[GRE-prep-sample issue essay second paragraph]] What is being asserted in the very lengthy paragraph above is that specialists are required to examine and explain minute details that generalists cannot fathom because they/we have other multifarious aspects/ideas in our heads. We need specialists because they alone understand their subject/field/specialty beyond the crux and to the core. There are questions that generalists fail to answer because they work with a broad spectrum of ideas. They, therefore do not have or draw in a complete comprehensive grasp of any particular aspect of this spectrum. Specialists may not be well-rehearsed on the entire face of a field but are more useful than generalists, because the faction they have specialized in; they know like the back of their hand with sedulous precision. Generalists cannot posses nor convey such punctilious expertise.
Vs In defense of generalists

Firstly over-specialization makes is non-sense concept. Even the synthesis of the concepts of “over” and “specialization” is a superfluous notion. Especially because specialization implies a master of some type of knowledge and to say and over master, reeks of forced cohesion. For it is silly to say that someone understand a topic too much. The presumption is supposed to be that that because of this specialization they may lack of the ability to recognize a where they are in a general or holistic few. But all we have here is a presumption of the possibility that someone may not see the whole. The problem is that such a claim depends on someone being justified to claim that they see the whole which is a very tough sell in its own right. Secondly your argument is nothing but a bunch of Maybes and bold assertion with no supporting premises. This is nothing but a slippery slope of maybe one big slippery slope. Base on a concept that is short of complete coherence. Another problem is that they position itself suggest a motive based from jealousy. Not saying it is, but it enough to not discount. That is it is very popular for the casual specialist, to claim against those of more education. For it is already popular for people not educated to make claims to have some other special form of intelligence. And nobody should think otherwise upon demonstration. Another reason to be suspicious is because the notion of intelligence has an authorative connotation on in relation to making decisions, thus giving a sense of inferiority to someone who does not have this recognition. Not that they don’t have the talent but that it creates a bias in favour of discrediting the specialist. In some form or another. It a common form of Anti-intellectualism. A popular type of hate which became popular since the romantic age, the problem is that the specialist is always out numbered. Of course it possible for someone to not see the big picture, but you have not yet given an argument why this is in fact particular to the specialist only. Good luck with that one.
Specialists point to specific usable information

The counterargument to the first no-point seems to balk at the very idea being relayed in the very point being addressed. "Simply put, without specialists, our society would find itself bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was fine for early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area."[[G.R.E ISSUE SAMPLE ESSAY PARAGRAPH THREE]] If everyone was a generalist than we would all carry bits and pieces of rather useless superficial content. In sum, No one would be able to help anyone.
Specialists point to specific usable information

Or do they? Agreed that specialists prod the needy towards the light; however; the needy need to be able to access the right specialists; first. A cardiac surgeon cannot and will not help you if you have colitis. While depth is all-important; it is best to begin by starting on the shallow side of the pool. Only a generalist can aid the less qualified in determining/assessing where/when it is best to swim in deep water, without risking the prospect of drowning.
In defense of generalists

This was asserted earlier; specialists are confined to a box and fail to see the bigger picture because they have a very specialized and myopic lens to peek through. However the point to the left; ignores the indisputable fact that every specialist augurs as a generalist. The notion that any one person is holistically and entirely restricted to a specialized discipline is practically bunkum. No matter how deep we go in a particular area of knowledge we do not lose a sense of what is generally known or understood. Specialist doctors have all attained degrees professing proficiency in general medicine prior to post graduate study. While none of us retain everything ; even generalists need a memory jog, refresher course or a big fat pile of textbooks to refer to, every once in a while. No one person or part of what Durkheim would call the body of the whole; can function optimally without reliance on other organs. Codependent interdependence is the order of the day. Not even a generalist can work in isolation.
In defense of generalists

"Over specialization means narrow focii in which people can lose the larger picture.No one can hope to understand the human body by only inspecting one's own toe-nails. What we learn from a narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if we inspect only our toe-nails, we may conclude that the whole body is hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various discovieries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a picture. Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral or universall issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the environment. With specialization, each person focusses on their research and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the wholisitc view of our global existence in which true advancement may mean stifling individual specialists for the greater good of all. Finally, over-specialization in a people's daily lives and jobs has meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must conciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only does this make for narrowly focussed and generally pooprly-educated individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal dissatisfaction. Without generalists, society becomes inward-looking and eventually inefficient. Without a society that recongnizes the impotance of braod-mindedness and fora for sharing generalities, individuals become isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field and know what the stakes are." [[G.R.E ISSUE SAMPLE ESSAY PARAGRAPHS four-to-seven]]
We need specialists; because no one person can amass general knowledge on everything and some how manage to give/share/retain crucial, expert and detailed data as well.

Agreed that specialists alone, can interpret,explain and effectively utilize the small print spangled with lead weight professional jargon. Generalists even without a holistic grasp of the content that specialists relay can understand it better than the layperson. Generalists are not without function and are essential in mediating between the person with little/no understanding of a field and one with a very intensive and intricate understanding of a specific portion of the field. Specialists maintain a myopic visualization of a subject as they are restricted to narrowed down very detailed material. For example; A podiatrist cannot explain or address a neurological issue. S/he is entirely focused on his/her patient's feet and anything else that can be related to the persons feet. It is arduous for him/her to properly probe/diagnose a disease that has nothing to do with feet; as while this person began with generalist training s/he culminated to thinking within a very complex box losing the ability to think outside of it. A general practitioner however, can identify/diagnose a disease and send the patient to the right and relevant specialist even without being a specialist himself/herself. In this era of information explosion and vast internet resources; the need for middlemen who can simplify and extract the data that you need and can use for your benefit, is more dire than ever before.
Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong

Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong. The all-volunteer forces are severely troubled by falling retention and recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for all jobs guarantees more willing recruits. Not only does it help military readiness, it forestalls the calamity of a military draft. Without the possibility of active combat duty, many patriotic women will be put off enlisting, as they know they will be regarded as second-class soldiers. And as combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel this experience ensures that very few will ever reach the highest reaches of the military and so further entrenches sexism.
Women, some studies have shown, can perform as well as, if not better than men.

Women, some studies have shown, can perform as well as, if not better than men. In active combat, several Soviet women distinguished themselves as fighter aces-the elite of combat aviators. The Israelis make frequent use of women as snipers and sniper-trainers. The Rand Corporation studied increased deployment of women in all three branches of the United States military throughout the 1990s. They wholeheartedly endorsed further integration, having found no ill effects from expanding the roles of women in the different services over that period.
This debate is largely becoming purely philosophical and unrealistic.

This debate is largely becoming purely philosophical and unrealistic. Perhaps the only thing to take from the grossly misreported Jessica Lynch case is that the idea of a ‘front line’ in guerilla warfare is a fiction. These conflicts are ‘Low Intensity’ conflicts, defined by the US Military as “... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies... It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments.” The front line is nowhere, and everywhere. In late June of 2005, two women marines were killed and about a dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks. In the modern world of combat, women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. People show broad support for women serving in the armed forces, and it has not wavered as warfare has changed, a clear sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is recognized.
Women are vitally needed for Low-intensity conflicts.

Women are vitally needed for Low-intensity conflicts. LICs require tasks to “win hearts and minds” such as intelligence gathering, medical assistance, policing, and mediation, as well as the ability to kill an opponent in close combat. Cultural differences and demographics mean that woman will be vastly more effective in some circumstances than men. For example, the job of many of the female marines killed and injured in June 2005 was to search women for explosives at checkpoints to avoid the near-universal sense of humiliation engendered by a member of the opposite sex conducting an intimate bodily search. Allowing women to serve also doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require interpersonal skills not every soldier has. Having a wider personnel base allows militaries to have the best and most diplomatic soldiers working to end conflict quickly.
Chivalry is not dead yet

Although our society has progressed to allow both men and women to have equal opportunities, it is hard to override the basic instincts that a man may have to act as a 'protector'. It can be said that if women were allowed on the front line then perhaps they would distract the men. Men may be more prone to look out for their female colleagues perhaps at the expense of their own life or others around them. There is also an issue of emotions clouding their judgement. If soldiers on the front line were mixed then it would be inevitable that relationships would be formed. This could lead to problems as soldiers will become more focused on the safety of their partner than on the job in hand. On the other hand, if a relationship ended badly, it would clearly affect their working lives. Another problem that was brought to my attention was the issue of hostages. Although women can be just as mentally strong etc as their male counterparts, there is a difference. Women, unfortunately, could be subjected to rape as well as torture while in the custody of our enemies. This leaves them with much more than physical scars which may never heal properly. Perhaps women should not be on the front line as men are perceived to be better at coping with the aftermath of torture and death. Everyone feels the pain when they lose one of their friends. The servicemen and women all live, eat, sleep, work together, creating a very strong bond between them. Men, however, might be able to cope better when faced with the loss of one of them than a woman. Women are stereotypically more sensitive and may struggle to separate themselves enough to ensure that no more losses are caused. Women should not be allowed on the front line as I believe that men would go out of their way to 'protect' their female colleagues which could endanger not only themselves and those around them, but it could jeoporadise their mission. Also, I do not believe that women can cope as easily as men when faced with torture and death. Thus, I fully support men and women being in the Armed Forces but the reasons above women should still be kept back from the front line.
It Is Discriminatory to Bar Women from Combat

I believe that if there was such a demand for women in combat, it would be legalised. But, it is clear that the amount of women volunteering for combat is negligible, and that the people complaining will not at any point volunteer to serve. And, if this was legalised, all men and women would have to join the army in times of war, which if it were to happen, I am sure women would say that they shouldn't be forced into fighting.
This position upholds equality between the sexes.

Women are equal to men in the armed forces, but they are not the same as men. While the vast proportion of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not. One expert estimate put the number of physically excellent candidates in the USA at 200 a year. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move.
Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong

Men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. On the one hand, men are likely to act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. On the other, this will take the form of harassment and resentment of women’s presence in a heavily masculine military subculture. As more women enter the armed services, abuse incidents rise. At the three US service academies, one in seven women report being sexually assaulted, and fully half have been sexually harassed. Both these problems make create tensions and affect morale, and so weaken the military in combat situations.
Women, some studies have shown, can perform as well as, if not better than men.

Much has been made on integration’s effect on morale and readiness. While the kind of widespread infighting caused by ‘competition for female affection’ claimed by alarmists is unlikely in the face of military discipline, the maintenance of active combat relationships does weaken the will to fight. In addition to the regular masculine plague of drug use and violence, women already serving in the navy and air force often end up pregnant. Up to 10% of active duty women personnel in the US armed forces are unavailable for call-up and duty due to pregnancy. The British Royal Navy has also found this a problem since allowing women to serve equally on warships.
Of the more than twenty nations who have expanded their roles for women

The threat of increased abuse of women prisoners is a serious one. Male prisoners also contend with the threat of torture and rape, but it is quite possible that misogynistic societies will be more willing to abuse woman prisoners. The threat of female prisoners of war being misused in this way may adversely affect the way in which their captured male comrades react to interrogation. And in a media age the use of captured female soldiers in propaganda broadcasts may have a different effect on the television audience back home, perhaps weakening the nation’s determination and commitment to the war effort.
This debate is largely becoming purely philosophical and unrealistic.

Biological arguments can be enlisted in the case against women in front line combat. Pregnancy is already a problem in the military, reducing unit readiness. However, if women were to see greater deployment and presence in the armed forces, it would only worsen the problem. Especially with national guard soldiers who build lives and families at home, pregnancy is much more likely to be a problem than with active-duty woman soldiers. Likewise, it can be a means of avoiding call-up. Men have even used this tactic during the Vietnam War: Unpleasant as the thought may be, Dick Cheney conceived a child the day after the draft was to be expanded to married men without children. When women face active duty call-up or a draft, some will do the same.
Women are vitally needed for Low-intensity conflicts.

The presence of women on the battlefield can increase the odds of physical abuse and sexual trauma as well. A prevalent theme in many nationalist conflicts is to extinguish the bloodlines of the enemy culture, and to proclaim that the enemy is trying to do the same to them. This manifests itself, especially in the different Balkan conflicts, as mass murder of the men of the village and a systematic rape of the women. It is unlikely that women from a third intervening power in this situation will be treated any differently if that kind of fearsome mentality has already set into the minds of combatants.