rjohnstone
Apr 26, 02:24 PM
Apple is for people who like quality high-end stuff and Android is for Kmart shoppers ;)
I feel sorry for you if you actually believe that.
I feel sorry for you if you actually believe that.
ergle2
Sep 17, 01:42 AM
I meant Geforce GO7800, a mistake on my part.
I did some more poking around, and apparently, a Go 7900 model (90nm) that has a TDP rated at around 10% more than the rated TDP of the X1600.
That might be possible. Based on that the Go 7700 80nm should easily consume less power than the current X1600, and given the base 7600 was faster than the X1600, the 7700 (based on the 7600GS) should offer significant speedup for 3D.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple favors Intel with the AMD-ATI merger/buyout, too.
Finally, there's always the (rather unlikely, admittedly) possibility that the MBPs (perhaps just the 17"?) would offer MXM slots; currently, MXM means nVidia.
I did some more poking around, and apparently, a Go 7900 model (90nm) that has a TDP rated at around 10% more than the rated TDP of the X1600.
That might be possible. Based on that the Go 7700 80nm should easily consume less power than the current X1600, and given the base 7600 was faster than the X1600, the 7700 (based on the 7600GS) should offer significant speedup for 3D.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple favors Intel with the AMD-ATI merger/buyout, too.
Finally, there's always the (rather unlikely, admittedly) possibility that the MBPs (perhaps just the 17"?) would offer MXM slots; currently, MXM means nVidia.
LBmacman
Aug 7, 03:29 PM
Damn thats a lot of power. The 2.66 model seems to be the best deal. :)
Piggie
Apr 23, 06:25 PM
Because those screens WILL look better to those normal customers. Text and graphics will look sharper, and clearer.
The iPhone screen, before the retina screen, had a higher resolution than macs. People could not see individual pixels. Despite that, ask any Tom Dick or Harry on the street, and they will be unequivocal that the Retina screen is far better looking than the 3GS screens.
The iPhone, before the current model had a screen res of 320 x 480
The first iMac, made 13 years ago in 1998 (the G3) had a screen res of 1024x768 the same as an iPad2 they are making today.
The first Apple Mac in 1984, 27 years ago had a screen res of 512�342 on a black and white screen.
I don't know where you get your statement than the "iPhone had a higher resolution than macs"
The iPhone screen, before the retina screen, had a higher resolution than macs. People could not see individual pixels. Despite that, ask any Tom Dick or Harry on the street, and they will be unequivocal that the Retina screen is far better looking than the 3GS screens.
The iPhone, before the current model had a screen res of 320 x 480
The first iMac, made 13 years ago in 1998 (the G3) had a screen res of 1024x768 the same as an iPad2 they are making today.
The first Apple Mac in 1984, 27 years ago had a screen res of 512�342 on a black and white screen.
I don't know where you get your statement than the "iPhone had a higher resolution than macs"
johnnyturbouk
Apr 25, 06:51 AM
i would love to get a 27" ACD with retina display - once they have started to incorporate OLED
OLED+retina display :D
OLED+retina display :D
scu
Aug 7, 04:00 PM
The last rumor I had read stated we would not see these machines for 5 or 6 weeks. They are available today. Glad we went to Intel.
Apple should sell a ton of these since there are those who waited for the Intel chips in the desktops. Once Photoshop comes out with the Intel version the transition is complete.
I was hoping to see some new displays but the drop in price was good news never the less.
By this time next year AAPL should be worth double:)
Apple should sell a ton of these since there are those who waited for the Intel chips in the desktops. Once Photoshop comes out with the Intel version the transition is complete.
I was hoping to see some new displays but the drop in price was good news never the less.
By this time next year AAPL should be worth double:)
vendettabass
Sep 11, 03:56 AM
I'd love that media mac! good work!
0815
May 4, 04:44 PM
What about Enterprise users?
The can use the not preferred option ... preferred does not mean its the one and only option - it means it is one of n options (n >=2)
The can use the not preferred option ... preferred does not mean its the one and only option - it means it is one of n options (n >=2)
smoketetsu
May 6, 08:11 AM
Oh this rumor rearing its ugly head again. First of all is intel really stagnating so much that they would want to make this switch?
Also doesn't anyone realize that just because an OS runs on a different architecture that doesn't mean all the apps made for it will suddenly run with 100% compatibility and speed? When I say this I mean that for Windows as well. So Windows 8 is going to have an ARM version. Good luck running Crysis 2 on that (for starters.. just an example).
Also simpler applications may just need a recompile. But there are many others that would need much more than just a simple recompile. There are also many many others that wouldn't get either treatment and simply wont perform well or have good compatibility (or even work at all) for a long long time if ever. I know some developers who probably would laugh at you if you told them it'll just be a simple recompile for them. That kool-aid wasn't true in the transition to x86 either. We still have software that hasn't made the transition that would benefit from it but will simply by orphaned when rosetta is killed off in Lion. I hear people fretting because of that and having to scramble to get x86 versions of that software whether it be through bootcamp or WINE.
Speaking of which; when apple switched to x86 they gained a lot of compatibility benefits that would be dumped if\when they switch to ARM. When going from PPC to x86 I quickly started finding more software becoming available or possible to get going due to the compatibility increase of the new architecture. We would be taking a step or more backwards with ARM. Like for example there was quite a bit of software had intel specific optimizations or functions that became available for use in OS X when updating them to intel or universal binaries... this includes Windows software that ran very well because no actual emulation was involved.
Of course many casual users wouldn't care about any of that.... and there's a lot of front facing iOS software that could be easily ported. Like if an applications's engine is already available for both it's already easy to make a Mac and iOS version of the application. But the whole platform would become a lot less appealing for someone like me. I never used rosetta much as on my Core based Mac it really only worked well for me for the simplest things... like a text application I would use to post to a blog.... some application with 2D graphics.... CPU emulation tends to be dog slow and this is on the currently best performing desktop CPUs.
So you may look forward to this possibly happening but I don't. I guess I could see Apple doing it especially since they seem to be keen on having a post-PC world. But in my opinion they'd more likely dump the Mac altogether and have an iOS dominated future in the cards and if you want a Personal Computer you have to get a non-apple PC.
It's good for a company to keep its options open but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. But then again I guess I could see them doing it and waving goodbye to those who don't like it.
Also doesn't anyone realize that just because an OS runs on a different architecture that doesn't mean all the apps made for it will suddenly run with 100% compatibility and speed? When I say this I mean that for Windows as well. So Windows 8 is going to have an ARM version. Good luck running Crysis 2 on that (for starters.. just an example).
Also simpler applications may just need a recompile. But there are many others that would need much more than just a simple recompile. There are also many many others that wouldn't get either treatment and simply wont perform well or have good compatibility (or even work at all) for a long long time if ever. I know some developers who probably would laugh at you if you told them it'll just be a simple recompile for them. That kool-aid wasn't true in the transition to x86 either. We still have software that hasn't made the transition that would benefit from it but will simply by orphaned when rosetta is killed off in Lion. I hear people fretting because of that and having to scramble to get x86 versions of that software whether it be through bootcamp or WINE.
Speaking of which; when apple switched to x86 they gained a lot of compatibility benefits that would be dumped if\when they switch to ARM. When going from PPC to x86 I quickly started finding more software becoming available or possible to get going due to the compatibility increase of the new architecture. We would be taking a step or more backwards with ARM. Like for example there was quite a bit of software had intel specific optimizations or functions that became available for use in OS X when updating them to intel or universal binaries... this includes Windows software that ran very well because no actual emulation was involved.
Of course many casual users wouldn't care about any of that.... and there's a lot of front facing iOS software that could be easily ported. Like if an applications's engine is already available for both it's already easy to make a Mac and iOS version of the application. But the whole platform would become a lot less appealing for someone like me. I never used rosetta much as on my Core based Mac it really only worked well for me for the simplest things... like a text application I would use to post to a blog.... some application with 2D graphics.... CPU emulation tends to be dog slow and this is on the currently best performing desktop CPUs.
So you may look forward to this possibly happening but I don't. I guess I could see Apple doing it especially since they seem to be keen on having a post-PC world. But in my opinion they'd more likely dump the Mac altogether and have an iOS dominated future in the cards and if you want a Personal Computer you have to get a non-apple PC.
It's good for a company to keep its options open but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. But then again I guess I could see them doing it and waving goodbye to those who don't like it.
Lord Bodak
Mar 28, 10:56 AM
Not as far as 95% of users are concerned. Most users don't utilize half of what the current device can do.
That might be true, but most people I know walk in to their cell phone stores every 2 years and buy whatever is new. Many of them will choose a new Android or WP7 phone over a year-old iPhone, simply because the guy at the store says "this just came out."
As long as Apple is in bed with carriers on the standard two-year contract, they have to stick to a 12 or 24 month product cycle. 24 months is too long, which leaves the current 12 month cycle.
Personally I think this is all FUD. iPhone 5 will be an incremental upgrade, like the 3GS was, and it will be announced at WWDC. Because it's a fairly small upgrade compared to the other big items of the year (Lion, iOS 5, and likely new Macs with more of a focus on SSD), there will be less talk about it in advance of the event.
That might be true, but most people I know walk in to their cell phone stores every 2 years and buy whatever is new. Many of them will choose a new Android or WP7 phone over a year-old iPhone, simply because the guy at the store says "this just came out."
As long as Apple is in bed with carriers on the standard two-year contract, they have to stick to a 12 or 24 month product cycle. 24 months is too long, which leaves the current 12 month cycle.
Personally I think this is all FUD. iPhone 5 will be an incremental upgrade, like the 3GS was, and it will be announced at WWDC. Because it's a fairly small upgrade compared to the other big items of the year (Lion, iOS 5, and likely new Macs with more of a focus on SSD), there will be less talk about it in advance of the event.
coder12
Mar 28, 11:09 AM
It's important that Apple starts to devote some serious time to it's operating systems as well. I don't see any major drawbacks to delaying any potential new hardware introductions.
I'm feeling the same way on this. I want Gingerbread and HPre OS to lust after iOS again!
I'm feeling the same way on this. I want Gingerbread and HPre OS to lust after iOS again!
trrosen
May 7, 12:27 PM
Most people don't understand the fundamental differences between iDisk and Drop Box. If Apple was to build a front end to iDisk that stored the file locally and then sync'd over WebDAV in the background they'd be able to offer the same performance.
Prefrences > mobile me > iDisk ...Set iDisk syncing on and a local cache of your iDisk is created and synced automatically. Just like dropbox.
Prefrences > mobile me > iDisk ...Set iDisk syncing on and a local cache of your iDisk is created and synced automatically. Just like dropbox.
Wondercow
Apr 18, 03:16 PM
as John Rubinstein said - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Imitation is the sincerest of flattery
Charles Caleb Colton Lacon: or, Many things in few words, 1820
Many other examples of the same thought�though not as eloquent or quotable�antedate even this.
Imitation is the sincerest of flattery
Charles Caleb Colton Lacon: or, Many things in few words, 1820
Many other examples of the same thought�though not as eloquent or quotable�antedate even this.
iVeBeenDrinkin'
Apr 10, 02:42 AM
Oh really? Wow I didn't know that... Sarcasm.
I'm talking about on a calculator. Enter it EXACTLY how it was in the OP and you'll get 288.
Looks like your sarcasm is on par with you math. When you have to explain sarcasm, it's not really sarcastic.
I'm talking about on a calculator. Enter it EXACTLY how it was in the OP and you'll get 288.
Looks like your sarcasm is on par with you math. When you have to explain sarcasm, it's not really sarcastic.
CalBoy
May 6, 04:30 PM
So you're saying that science has nothing to do with everyday life? Cake for the elite and bread for everyone else??
I didn't say that at all.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
I see no good sense in that. If the metric system was intrinsically difficult to use in everyday life, then maybe you would have a point. But it's not � it's actually much, much easier to use once you learn it.
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10, or even multiply what you measure? In most of my daily activities the metric system would do nothing new except provide a new set of numbers to get to know.
Even if you did occasionally multiply daily measurements, it would probably be with a smaller integer like 2, 3, or 4. In that case, the imperial system works very well because it provides very low factors and products that most people can do rapidly with nothing more than their 2nd grade 12x12 tables. In fact that's exactly how it came to be the way it is.
The metric system, as many people here keep pointing out, enables some pretty easy mental arithmetic. You'd use it if you had it.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
You say it's about the 'ease of transition' but in the next breath you argue that it's all about 'economic return'. Personally I think you're clutching at straws to defend the fact that your country is behind the rest of the world in its ability to institute any kind of consistency with its system of measurements. But, we can agree to disagree.
They are not mutually exclusive values. Both are important factors in determining whether or not to switch. It's just like when a business decides to change it's logo; not only does the cost of marketing the new logo have to be factored in, but the potential lost sales also have to be weighed. In much the same way we have to decide if certain things being switched to metric will ever pay off and how disruptive they'll be. Some things that make sense like food and toiletries have already been metricated. Other things probably cost a lot more and won't be able to overcome their switching cost and they could also cost a lot.
I didn't say that at all.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
I see no good sense in that. If the metric system was intrinsically difficult to use in everyday life, then maybe you would have a point. But it's not � it's actually much, much easier to use once you learn it.
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10, or even multiply what you measure? In most of my daily activities the metric system would do nothing new except provide a new set of numbers to get to know.
Even if you did occasionally multiply daily measurements, it would probably be with a smaller integer like 2, 3, or 4. In that case, the imperial system works very well because it provides very low factors and products that most people can do rapidly with nothing more than their 2nd grade 12x12 tables. In fact that's exactly how it came to be the way it is.
The metric system, as many people here keep pointing out, enables some pretty easy mental arithmetic. You'd use it if you had it.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
You say it's about the 'ease of transition' but in the next breath you argue that it's all about 'economic return'. Personally I think you're clutching at straws to defend the fact that your country is behind the rest of the world in its ability to institute any kind of consistency with its system of measurements. But, we can agree to disagree.
They are not mutually exclusive values. Both are important factors in determining whether or not to switch. It's just like when a business decides to change it's logo; not only does the cost of marketing the new logo have to be factored in, but the potential lost sales also have to be weighed. In much the same way we have to decide if certain things being switched to metric will ever pay off and how disruptive they'll be. Some things that make sense like food and toiletries have already been metricated. Other things probably cost a lot more and won't be able to overcome their switching cost and they could also cost a lot.
Multimedia
Jul 23, 01:48 AM
I don't know, I'm kinda expecting it. As seen in the past, I'm sure they'll drop to ~$1000. Maybe even cheaper once they get some of their R&D back and chip prices start to fall. Eventually I see a sub $800 laptop even. Maybe.I seriously doubt it. It's not part of Apple's style to appeal to the masses by offering something CHEAP. :eek:
"Profits" on those sub $1k notebooks are next to nothing. Apple wouldn't want to make so little per unit. Plus they don't need to do that. You can buy old Macs for under $1k all the time. Since the refurbished 1.83 GHz Combo MacBook is already only $949, what's the problem? :confused:
You think that isn't low enough? You want Apple to be a welfare agency for those who can't afford $949? Because given the slim margins that would be involved in such a product, that is what they would be doing. Plus they would be canibalizing their above $1k sales. Makes no sense to me. :rolleyes:
"Profits" on those sub $1k notebooks are next to nothing. Apple wouldn't want to make so little per unit. Plus they don't need to do that. You can buy old Macs for under $1k all the time. Since the refurbished 1.83 GHz Combo MacBook is already only $949, what's the problem? :confused:
You think that isn't low enough? You want Apple to be a welfare agency for those who can't afford $949? Because given the slim margins that would be involved in such a product, that is what they would be doing. Plus they would be canibalizing their above $1k sales. Makes no sense to me. :rolleyes:
GGJstudios
Jan 12, 10:42 AM
I'yes I'm a Mac user, and yes it has detected files with problems.
What kind of problems, exactly? Windows malware? Mac malware?
What kind of problems, exactly? Windows malware? Mac malware?
CalBoy
May 3, 03:39 PM
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right? ;)
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
EternalTL2k3
Jul 30, 03:11 PM
one of my favorite phones back in the day were those small nokias which had one of the best menus I have tried. Currently I have the sony T616 which has a decent menu system but not great. I've tried the motorola ones and am not impressed at all which is why I stay away from the SLVR and RAZR. Hopefully the iphone or whatever it will be called will look great, have a great menu system, and play at least 1GB of songs --- thats just my wishlist
-aggie-
May 3, 09:39 PM
Also where the hell is this lair???
jsalzer
Jul 30, 04:26 PM
i think i'll buy a Macbook instead
Ah, but the new iPhone can be purchased as a part of the package with a MacBook Pro - as it will conveniently fit into the ExpressCard/34 slot. It can be pulled out and used as a stand-alone phone, or it can be left in the slot to allow the user a full iChatAV phone experience from anywhere on the road.
That slot had to be put there for a reason - and the remote doesn't fit. Right?
:)
OK, maybe not.
Ah, but the new iPhone can be purchased as a part of the package with a MacBook Pro - as it will conveniently fit into the ExpressCard/34 slot. It can be pulled out and used as a stand-alone phone, or it can be left in the slot to allow the user a full iChatAV phone experience from anywhere on the road.
That slot had to be put there for a reason - and the remote doesn't fit. Right?
:)
OK, maybe not.
ravenvii
May 3, 02:15 PM
I feel like DP: why wouldn't we just tell people our secret power?
You will see why.
DP's Q's:
when the villain places monsters/traps, are they one per turn or any number per turn (provided that he has them)?
Any number per turn, provided he has enough turns.
can monster be moved to a different room by the villain after they are placed? can he reorganize them at every round? does it cost points? can traps be moved? are all traps the same (cost and damage)?
No to all.
if a villain needs to go through a room where he placed a trap, can he temporarily disable it?
Traps and monsters don't harm the villain.
You will see why.
DP's Q's:
when the villain places monsters/traps, are they one per turn or any number per turn (provided that he has them)?
Any number per turn, provided he has enough turns.
can monster be moved to a different room by the villain after they are placed? can he reorganize them at every round? does it cost points? can traps be moved? are all traps the same (cost and damage)?
No to all.
if a villain needs to go through a room where he placed a trap, can he temporarily disable it?
Traps and monsters don't harm the villain.
commonpeople
Jul 30, 12:21 AM
As a photo geek I would have to disagree with you here. I don't believe myself that the lens quality for something so small would be good enough, and I especially don't believe that the sensors @ 5mp that small would be up to it. You'd have ridiculous amounts of noise in almost any photo, and optical aberrations would be easily picked up. Pixel density would be incredible. They have trouble getting good performance out of 6mp sensors that are several times as large as the one that would be here, and lenses on those same point and shoot digital cameras often will show massive amounts of chromatic aberrations particularly around strong light sources and highlight-shadow transitions even with lenses that are many many times larger.
You would also probably not have a real zoom.
This is all speculation on my part, but based on the price points of the best point and shoots, to get decent performance out of a cell camera that small and with that much resolution, you'd have to pay a huge price tag.
Given the quality (sic) of iSight, I'm not sure that Apple is going to make a camera phone that will satisfy you. Come back in 30 years and we'll see.
You would also probably not have a real zoom.
This is all speculation on my part, but based on the price points of the best point and shoots, to get decent performance out of a cell camera that small and with that much resolution, you'd have to pay a huge price tag.
Given the quality (sic) of iSight, I'm not sure that Apple is going to make a camera phone that will satisfy you. Come back in 30 years and we'll see.
generik
Sep 16, 08:14 AM
I am not that greedy, give me the same DL drives that have already been on PC laptops since 2 years ago and I will be happy :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment