seek3r
May 6, 12:36 AM
Very true. Listen to the man.
There's many analysts that believe ARM will supersede Intel.
Well, first of all, don't confuse *x86* with Intel. Intel has made ARM chips in the past (XScale, StrongARM), and might in the future (including a recent rumor about apple moving to using Intel's foundries for the A5 later in the year, and the A6 or whatever the next chip will be called). For that matter, there are other x86 designers and foundries (AMD and Global Foundries & VIA) and Intel has had several other arches of its own. Intel is the largest chipmaker in the world, ARM is a chip design corp that does excellent work and licenses their work to foundries and other design houses - they're not remotely similar companies except in the sense that they both work on CPUs.
The ARM arch *may* one day supersede x86, but *Intel* isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
In the short term I don't see that happening quite yet, ARM usually focuses on low power first, not performance, and while there is a convergence in the netbook/phone/tablet areas, an iMac, MP, or MBP based on any current ARM designs for example would be woefully underpowered compared to an x86 design.
Apple licensing Mac OS X to Dell.
If it were done well I can think of plenty of people that would like OSX Server on Poweredge blades
There's many analysts that believe ARM will supersede Intel.
Well, first of all, don't confuse *x86* with Intel. Intel has made ARM chips in the past (XScale, StrongARM), and might in the future (including a recent rumor about apple moving to using Intel's foundries for the A5 later in the year, and the A6 or whatever the next chip will be called). For that matter, there are other x86 designers and foundries (AMD and Global Foundries & VIA) and Intel has had several other arches of its own. Intel is the largest chipmaker in the world, ARM is a chip design corp that does excellent work and licenses their work to foundries and other design houses - they're not remotely similar companies except in the sense that they both work on CPUs.
The ARM arch *may* one day supersede x86, but *Intel* isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
In the short term I don't see that happening quite yet, ARM usually focuses on low power first, not performance, and while there is a convergence in the netbook/phone/tablet areas, an iMac, MP, or MBP based on any current ARM designs for example would be woefully underpowered compared to an x86 design.
Apple licensing Mac OS X to Dell.
If it were done well I can think of plenty of people that would like OSX Server on Poweredge blades
SiliconAddict
Nov 22, 11:37 AM
iPod Phone == phone + music
Palm Treo == Tool
Threat averted. Life can go on as usual. :rolleyes:
Palm Treo == Tool
Threat averted. Life can go on as usual. :rolleyes:
Amazing Iceman
Apr 18, 04:46 PM
LOL, Everybody wants to be like Apple!
I wonder why....
I wonder why....
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 11, 02:31 AM
IF that TiVo rumor is true, it will be a dream come to life!
Proud owner of a Mac....and a Tivo w/DVD burner.
I can't see how Apple can begin an sell movies and not also sell a Media Mac.
It would be like iTMS and no iPods... how well would that work? :rolleyes:
Proud owner of a Mac....and a Tivo w/DVD burner.
I can't see how Apple can begin an sell movies and not also sell a Media Mac.
It would be like iTMS and no iPods... how well would that work? :rolleyes:
nsjoker
Aug 7, 03:27 PM
106fps in Doom 3 at high quality with the X1900 XT :eek: :eek:
What a machine! I'll have 3 to go please.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/721/721902p2.html
alienware, less expensive, 222 fps :D
granted no os x though so i understand.
What a machine! I'll have 3 to go please.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/721/721902p2.html
alienware, less expensive, 222 fps :D
granted no os x though so i understand.
Number 41
Apr 26, 02:45 PM
And it least Android has healthy competition too (unlike MS).
For now. There's very little to stop Android's market share from continuing to climb. WinMobile has little traction, RIM & Symbian are bleeding users daily.
We could be having this discussion 1 year from now (after an underwhelming, minor spec upgrade iPhone 5 in Sept) after the 2011 Christmas season and seeing Android's market share at 60%+ easily.
For now. There's very little to stop Android's market share from continuing to climb. WinMobile has little traction, RIM & Symbian are bleeding users daily.
We could be having this discussion 1 year from now (after an underwhelming, minor spec upgrade iPhone 5 in Sept) after the 2011 Christmas season and seeing Android's market share at 60%+ easily.
bella92108
Apr 5, 02:22 PM
It's: "Do not buy iPhone. Go with Android." That's how I see it. Companies like Toyota will have no choice but to double their efforts in serving Android users.
They pushed me away, I'm Android on my phone, iPad 2 on my tablet. If I can't jailbreak my iPad 2 in the next week, HELLO ANDROID XOOM :-)
They pushed me away, I'm Android on my phone, iPad 2 on my tablet. If I can't jailbreak my iPad 2 in the next week, HELLO ANDROID XOOM :-)
generik
Sep 16, 05:21 AM
There is no way the MBP's will recieve resolution upgrades before Leopard. Santa Rosa MBP's will definiantly be bumped to 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. Tiger is resolution dependent, which means that a higher DPI would make it nearly impossible to see anything.
It might be as soon as MWSF... remember how Apple released a half arsed PB update last October before unleashing the BOMB 3 months later?
All those who bought that last PB probably felt cheated, thank God I sold mine off in time :rolleyes:
It might be as soon as MWSF... remember how Apple released a half arsed PB update last October before unleashing the BOMB 3 months later?
All those who bought that last PB probably felt cheated, thank God I sold mine off in time :rolleyes:
itcheroni
Apr 19, 02:38 PM
Well, I'm willing to read about it and really try to understand your point of view.
I thought we were just having a conversation...what I'm really looking for is a succinct argument as a frame for further investigation. I'm not convinced by either "side" here, but I am challenging your assertions because I'm trying to get a stronger sense of your point of view and where its edges are. So, if it feels like I'm picking at you, it's only because I find your arguments interesting and strong enough to be worth chewing on.
I didn't think you were picking on me. I'm just saying that I might not be able to explain everything understandably. It's really hard to have a succinct discussion because everything depends on an understanding of other concepts. For example, I was saying capital gains taxes needs to be understood along with inflation which needs to be understood along with monetary policy, etc. I guess the point I was trying to make is that you won't be able to learn/unlearn economics on a message board. It's takes more serious research.
I thought we were just having a conversation...what I'm really looking for is a succinct argument as a frame for further investigation. I'm not convinced by either "side" here, but I am challenging your assertions because I'm trying to get a stronger sense of your point of view and where its edges are. So, if it feels like I'm picking at you, it's only because I find your arguments interesting and strong enough to be worth chewing on.
I didn't think you were picking on me. I'm just saying that I might not be able to explain everything understandably. It's really hard to have a succinct discussion because everything depends on an understanding of other concepts. For example, I was saying capital gains taxes needs to be understood along with inflation which needs to be understood along with monetary policy, etc. I guess the point I was trying to make is that you won't be able to learn/unlearn economics on a message board. It's takes more serious research.
lilo777
Apr 5, 02:20 PM
It's: "Do not buy iPhone. Go with Android." That's how I see it. Companies like Toyota will have no choice but to double their efforts in serving Android users.
jeffud2
Apr 25, 09:40 AM
Too late for that: http://www.spokeo.com/
Scary, and seems to be US only.
Scary, and seems to be US only.
frankie
Sep 15, 10:00 PM
I'd be happy if it was the same enclosure with a Merom CPU and an upgraded GPU - ATI X1800 or nVidia 7700 would be nice.
A longer-life battery would be nice but I can't see it happening due to weight.
If you really want longer battery life, then you should be hoping to keep the X1600. It's regarded as having the best "performance per watt" of recent mobile GPUs.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
A longer-life battery would be nice but I can't see it happening due to weight.
If you really want longer battery life, then you should be hoping to keep the X1600. It's regarded as having the best "performance per watt" of recent mobile GPUs.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
dukebound85
May 3, 05:50 PM
holy smokes these games are intimidating to play....
here I am thinking the basic werewolves games were hard lol
here I am thinking the basic werewolves games were hard lol
Bonte
Apr 18, 04:01 PM
Looking at the TouchWiz UI, I see your point.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
We had smartphones, tablets and organisers years before the iPhone, if the layout and form-factor was so intuitive it should have been used before. Apple also uses the the start-screen a lot in promotions, it has become a logo for the device. Samsung also copy's the advertising to make it look like an Apple device, more than once i have to look more closely to a billboard to confirm it's not an iPhone. Samsung is the biggest copycat of them all.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
We had smartphones, tablets and organisers years before the iPhone, if the layout and form-factor was so intuitive it should have been used before. Apple also uses the the start-screen a lot in promotions, it has become a logo for the device. Samsung also copy's the advertising to make it look like an Apple device, more than once i have to look more closely to a billboard to confirm it's not an iPhone. Samsung is the biggest copycat of them all.
bcharna
Jul 30, 10:28 PM
" While I'm sure if it is true..."
it is true, i saw a add for it in a magazine. it gave the website: www.iphone.org,
but when i typed that in, all it gave me was the apple website with the .org URL. and its not a flip phone. its made by Sony Ericson. I believe this is why an Apple logo showed up on that one thing Sony was showing.
i saw the real one on the back pages of a "MacBook" magazine. would have bought it, but it was $30.http://www.ipodnoticias.com/uploaded_images/iphone-701958.jpg
it was this add
iphone.org isn't owned by Apple, therefore, Someone who wanted to fool people and couldn't afford to pay for a .com name could have easily bought this name and just directed it to apple.com.
Just a simple redirection people...
it is true, i saw a add for it in a magazine. it gave the website: www.iphone.org,
but when i typed that in, all it gave me was the apple website with the .org URL. and its not a flip phone. its made by Sony Ericson. I believe this is why an Apple logo showed up on that one thing Sony was showing.
i saw the real one on the back pages of a "MacBook" magazine. would have bought it, but it was $30.http://www.ipodnoticias.com/uploaded_images/iphone-701958.jpg
it was this add
iphone.org isn't owned by Apple, therefore, Someone who wanted to fool people and couldn't afford to pay for a .com name could have easily bought this name and just directed it to apple.com.
Just a simple redirection people...
adbe
Mar 29, 02:46 PM
the touch is the best selling ipod...it would be the last to disappear
It also extends the iOS install base by a significant amount.
It also extends the iOS install base by a significant amount.
ovrlrd
Mar 30, 09:24 PM
in Lion - in the user's home folder is the library hidden? according to some people on the photoshop forums - Apple has decided to make things simpler for new users. I hope thats not true. Can anyone confirm this?
Yes it is true. It is hidden by default now. Takes only a second to make it appear again though, so I don't see why it's that big of a deal? Any technical user that needs to see the Library folder will enable it, and anyone who isn't technical enough won't ever need to access it.
Yes it is true. It is hidden by default now. Takes only a second to make it appear again though, so I don't see why it's that big of a deal? Any technical user that needs to see the Library folder will enable it, and anyone who isn't technical enough won't ever need to access it.
pancakedrawer
May 4, 08:52 PM
I'm outraged.
OK, not really, just wary of not having an OS disk in case of problems. It'd have to be followed by the merest physical back-up device in the mail, just in case. The current packaging of OSX is ridiculous; it might be good for the noobs, but I throw away everything but the disk the moment the box opens. I'd rather get a tiny USB key in a plain, brown rapper.
Intended? Probably not. Funny? Hilarious.
OK, not really, just wary of not having an OS disk in case of problems. It'd have to be followed by the merest physical back-up device in the mail, just in case. The current packaging of OSX is ridiculous; it might be good for the noobs, but I throw away everything but the disk the moment the box opens. I'd rather get a tiny USB key in a plain, brown rapper.
Intended? Probably not. Funny? Hilarious.
0815
Mar 28, 11:32 AM
Great news...... for Google.
Really? I won't switch to google just because I would have to way a little bit longer for the iPhone5. Those who (claim they ) would switch because of that probably would have gotten an Android anyway.
Really? I won't switch to google just because I would have to way a little bit longer for the iPhone5. Those who (claim they ) would switch because of that probably would have gotten an Android anyway.
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.
chadley_chad
May 6, 08:12 AM
... Arm haven't got a leg to stand on!
wovel
Apr 7, 12:25 PM
Wow. I think you missed the point. At 1199, the MacbookPRO should have a discrete option...hell, POS HP's at 600.00 do.
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
munkery
Nov 2, 03:07 PM
ClamXAV is free and it's pretty good if you think you need it. Plus it's open source (I think).
ClamXav also is much lighter on system resources because it does not have real-time scanning.
It real-time scans emails (optional) and the specific folders you tell the sentry to watch; both via resource friendly daemons that launch ClamXav in the background when they detect changes in those areas. It does not real-time scan exhaustively (running processes & entire filesystem) but, at this point in time, this level of real-time scanning is not required on Macs.
The benefit of the lack of true real-time scanning is much less resource consumption.
EDIT: To clarify, email scanning needs to be set up with the Sentry. The option to scan email in the preferences is an option to scan the contents of mbox folders as individual items; not an option to real-time scan email. Add ~/Library/Mail and ~/Library/ Mail Downloads to real-time scan email for Mail.app.
ClamXav also is much lighter on system resources because it does not have real-time scanning.
It real-time scans emails (optional) and the specific folders you tell the sentry to watch; both via resource friendly daemons that launch ClamXav in the background when they detect changes in those areas. It does not real-time scan exhaustively (running processes & entire filesystem) but, at this point in time, this level of real-time scanning is not required on Macs.
The benefit of the lack of true real-time scanning is much less resource consumption.
EDIT: To clarify, email scanning needs to be set up with the Sentry. The option to scan email in the preferences is an option to scan the contents of mbox folders as individual items; not an option to real-time scan email. Add ~/Library/Mail and ~/Library/ Mail Downloads to real-time scan email for Mail.app.
roadbloc
Mar 30, 05:46 PM
Excellent.