baryon
May 4, 06:23 PM
This is great, with Snow Leopard I couldn't buy it for weeks as they were constantly "out of stock" in the shops.
But how do you boot from a disk image without a disk???
But how do you boot from a disk image without a disk???
milo
Aug 11, 02:58 PM
Remember, we're almost at 6 months with the Mac Mini, and it's seen neither a chip upgrade nor a speed bump.
So it's definitely due for one. You don't really think they'll go a year before it's upgraded, do you?
So it's definitely due for one. You don't really think they'll go a year before it's upgraded, do you?
rtdunham
Mar 27, 09:38 AM
I've read the music-in-the-cloud might store only iTMS-purchased music. I hope that' s not the case. If I'm storing my music I want to store all of it, not have to keep track of which part of it's in the cloud and which remains hardware-based. Ditto for other media, for that matter.
Derekasaurus
Aug 4, 12:19 AM
are people not expecting merom to go immediately into the macbook as well? i don't see a reason for apple to purposely gimp their best-selling notebook when a merom chip is supposed to cost the same as its yonah counterpart.
Right now there is a big price difference between the MB and MBP line but not a whole lot of difference in performance. Putting the Core 2 in the MBP would help differentiate it from the MB. That doesn't mean the MB won't get a speed bump (the Core Duo goes up to 2.33GHz), but Apple might delay putting Merom in the MB to differentiate the lines. I'd pounce on a Merom MB, but I don't think it's going to happen in conjunction with the Merom MBP.
Right now there is a big price difference between the MB and MBP line but not a whole lot of difference in performance. Putting the Core 2 in the MBP would help differentiate it from the MB. That doesn't mean the MB won't get a speed bump (the Core Duo goes up to 2.33GHz), but Apple might delay putting Merom in the MB to differentiate the lines. I'd pounce on a Merom MB, but I don't think it's going to happen in conjunction with the Merom MBP.
HecubusPro
Sep 16, 05:47 PM
I'll guess 12", 15" and 17". I read somewhere they're expecting a 12".
The 12" is a unverified rumor to be taken with a large grain of salt at this point. I would think they would just soup up a MB and sell it as a MBP before they made a 12" again. Of course, you never know with apple.
The 12" is a unverified rumor to be taken with a large grain of salt at this point. I would think they would just soup up a MB and sell it as a MBP before they made a 12" again. Of course, you never know with apple.
ravenvii
May 3, 11:35 AM
Hmm, interesting. I'm not eligible since I didn't play in Intell's last game, but this looks like fun.
No, you mis-read, I meant you must have played in at least three games. Intell's last game is counted if you played in that one. I edited the part to hopefully make it more clear. When I wrote it, Intell's game wasn't over.
You've played in *way* more than three games, so you're in if you want.
No, you mis-read, I meant you must have played in at least three games. Intell's last game is counted if you played in that one. I edited the part to hopefully make it more clear. When I wrote it, Intell's game wasn't over.
You've played in *way* more than three games, so you're in if you want.
jephrey
Jul 29, 11:10 PM
So I thought... Would apple release a phone-only? No chance. It will most definitely have music features including wireless downloads from the iTMS (including a way to put the songs on your computer)... If this rumor is true of course.
My hope is for the phone to work on the Nextel / Sprint network not just because I have a Nextel, but because they have had time with their walkie-talkie feature, and I'd imagine that that would benefit the use of something like iChat over the phone.
Ah well, only a little over a week till the big day!
Jephrey
My hope is for the phone to work on the Nextel / Sprint network not just because I have a Nextel, but because they have had time with their walkie-talkie feature, and I'd imagine that that would benefit the use of something like iChat over the phone.
Ah well, only a little over a week till the big day!
Jephrey
itcheroni
Apr 19, 10:36 AM
But, it can be income right? So, why does this *possible* income get such a different relationship? As citizenzen said, I'm willing to be convinced, I'm just not sure I buy that because capital gains can rise or fall based on vagaries such as inflation, that it remains fundamentally different than other forms of income.
What does "willing to be convinced" mean? Will you read Human Action by Mises? It's a thousand pages of thoroughly explained economics. You don't have to read the whole thing, just the sections pertaining to monetary policy and taxes.
If you are waiting for a super intelligent, eloquent, and succinct guy to spend a lot of time convincing people on message boards in order to be convinced of anything you don't already believe, you'll never change your mind about anything. From my end, I don't have the wherewithal or inclination to spend more than a few minutes on a post. So you're really only doing yourself a disservice by passively waiting for someone with all the answers- someone who is also willing to spend as much time as necessary to convince a complete stranger who completely disagrees with him.
What does "willing to be convinced" mean? Will you read Human Action by Mises? It's a thousand pages of thoroughly explained economics. You don't have to read the whole thing, just the sections pertaining to monetary policy and taxes.
If you are waiting for a super intelligent, eloquent, and succinct guy to spend a lot of time convincing people on message boards in order to be convinced of anything you don't already believe, you'll never change your mind about anything. From my end, I don't have the wherewithal or inclination to spend more than a few minutes on a post. So you're really only doing yourself a disservice by passively waiting for someone with all the answers- someone who is also willing to spend as much time as necessary to convince a complete stranger who completely disagrees with him.
rodriguise
May 6, 03:51 AM
I can see apple maybe putting an ARM chip in the macbook so it can run in low power tablet mode, but to complete replace the CPU really makes no sense. However lots that the do seldom makes sense, so who knows. The reason I won't be buying a mac again is simply because they are severly underpowered, gaming really sucks on them compared to what you can get on a PC.
citizenzen
Apr 15, 08:11 PM
You seemed to have missed it.
I didn't miss it, you did. here, I'll bold it, underline it and put it in red so it's easier for you to catch ...
I am primarily focused on making money through the time decay of the options. So, please, tell me how I am effecting the economy and please be specific.
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) �adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
I didn't miss it, you did. here, I'll bold it, underline it and put it in red so it's easier for you to catch ...
I am primarily focused on making money through the time decay of the options. So, please, tell me how I am effecting the economy and please be specific.
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) �adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 12:47 PM
...I walk away to contemplate seppuku
That is over dramatic, cut it out.
That is over dramatic, cut it out.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 6, 06:21 PM
What a joke of a tablet. Nothing but a piece of crap.
lmao
+1
back yo my precious (ipad)
lmao
+1
back yo my precious (ipad)
Benjy91
Apr 18, 03:28 PM
Wow, an article about Apple suing someone, that has more negatives than positives?
Thats probably a first.
Thats probably a first.
thogs_cave
Aug 11, 03:56 PM
Supposedly about 20% faster at the same clock speed, plus they are 64 bit, but the benefits of that in these machines is somewhat debatable. It's a nice upgrade, but not a huge one. [...] But that "goodness" mostly looks like greater memory access, which is a moot point in a machine with two ram slots. Most of the "goodness" isn't anything a laptop user will notice.
Which is really the point. It's not a quantum leap like the MacBook was over the iBook. (Having moved from one to the other, I can vouch for that.) I doubt I'd really notice the difference for 99.9% of what I do.
Which is really the point. It's not a quantum leap like the MacBook was over the iBook. (Having moved from one to the other, I can vouch for that.) I doubt I'd really notice the difference for 99.9% of what I do.
hobo.hopkins
Mar 29, 02:12 PM
Did anybody else notice that this "fourth generation iPod touch image" has the camera in the middle top of the body???
Maybe because the fourth generation iPod touch has a camera in the middle top of the body?
Are you serious? who cares about ipods & battery shortages when there is a crysis =/..
You are so right - because a terrible thing has occurred in Japan we shouldn't even mention them for a couple of years. Never mind that this is a website devoted to "Apple Mac Rumours and News You Care About". The next time something tragic happens here in America the entire website should shut down for a year or two, because Apple is an American company.
Maybe because the fourth generation iPod touch has a camera in the middle top of the body?
Are you serious? who cares about ipods & battery shortages when there is a crysis =/..
You are so right - because a terrible thing has occurred in Japan we shouldn't even mention them for a couple of years. Never mind that this is a website devoted to "Apple Mac Rumours and News You Care About". The next time something tragic happens here in America the entire website should shut down for a year or two, because Apple is an American company.
Elijahg
Apr 23, 06:45 PM
Instead of pixel based images that are just bigger, why not simply ship vector based icons/wallpapers ?
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
Computer generated imagery can be converted to a vector format more efficiently, as long as the source is available. The computer knows that for example, there is a gradient starting at X,Y and ending at X,Y with colour RGB at the start, and colour RGB at the end. Thus eliminating the need to keep detail about each pixel individually. This is great for things such as icons and certain web images, but for images with lots of detail, it quickly becomes much less efficient than even the highest quality JPEG. For real photos, it's pointless to vectorize. You'd just end up pixellating the image when scaled over it's original size anyway. So in other words, it's unlikely we'll see vector graphics for most icons and most certainly not for desktop backgrounds.
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them... I'm sure it wouldn't keep them away from iOS development for [i]too[/] long to add the latest, even as BTO. Valve has really helped gaming on the Mac, bringing great new releases like Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 at the same time as Windows. At least it seems Apple have had a kick up their ass from Valve pointing out the inefficiencies in OpenGL. Maybe that's what's made them hire a few gaming-type developers...? C'mon Apple!
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
Computer generated imagery can be converted to a vector format more efficiently, as long as the source is available. The computer knows that for example, there is a gradient starting at X,Y and ending at X,Y with colour RGB at the start, and colour RGB at the end. Thus eliminating the need to keep detail about each pixel individually. This is great for things such as icons and certain web images, but for images with lots of detail, it quickly becomes much less efficient than even the highest quality JPEG. For real photos, it's pointless to vectorize. You'd just end up pixellating the image when scaled over it's original size anyway. So in other words, it's unlikely we'll see vector graphics for most icons and most certainly not for desktop backgrounds.
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them... I'm sure it wouldn't keep them away from iOS development for [i]too[/] long to add the latest, even as BTO. Valve has really helped gaming on the Mac, bringing great new releases like Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 at the same time as Windows. At least it seems Apple have had a kick up their ass from Valve pointing out the inefficiencies in OpenGL. Maybe that's what's made them hire a few gaming-type developers...? C'mon Apple!
ECUpirate44
Mar 29, 01:16 PM
We knew this was coming...
EricNau
May 3, 09:48 PM
I don't have the time to write an exhaustive response to this magnum opus, but I'm going to leave with a few concluding points:
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.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
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).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
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).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
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?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
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.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
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?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
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.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
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.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
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.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
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.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
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.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
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).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
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).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
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?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
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.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
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?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
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.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
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.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
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.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
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.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
wacky4alanis
Jan 7, 09:10 AM
I tested my replacement dock this morning with no issues. I actually love this thing when it is working properly. It makes the whole "iPhone in the car" experience so much cleaner. I hop in the car, pop the iPhone into the mount, and it's ready for both music and nav. I also like how the TomTom app pauses the music during its voice instructions. Some people had complained about it being too abrupt, but it doesn't bother me at all. To be honest, I don't talk on the phone very much while driving, so I've only had one phone call using the bluetooth. That call was fine, but I don't have enough experience with it for a proper review.
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:
cr2sh
Nov 22, 12:58 PM
Wouldn't it be something if Apple sold one of the first unlocked phones from the get-go.
You walk into an Apple store, they have the iPhone in GSM form.. and you get a trade-in discount for your old phone.. the Apple reps pop-out your sim card, transfer your contacts.. and hand you an ipod like phone that has all your old info in it and works with your current plan.
:eek:
You walk into an Apple store, they have the iPhone in GSM form.. and you get a trade-in discount for your old phone.. the Apple reps pop-out your sim card, transfer your contacts.. and hand you an ipod like phone that has all your old info in it and works with your current plan.
:eek:
Vice92
Apr 10, 05:59 PM
Math is a language we engineers, scientists, economists, etc... are fluent in.
To us this is not-ideal delivery method, but it has a definite meaning.
Looking at the thread, I think there is a clear dividing line. Native math speakers: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc... say 288. Others who are effectively non-native speakers may interpret 2 due to their lack of fluency.
B
I don't see how you can say that. None the less how anyone can confidently answer this question.
You arrive at 288 by multiplying 48/2 * (9+3), but that is assuming multiplication is the implied operator.
The way the equation is written, this question simply does not make sense. Parenthesis or something similar are needed to make this equation solvable.
You say you are fluent in mathematics, etc, but fluency requires proper syntax, which the equation simply does not have. If a professional gave me this problem to solve I would call them an idiot.
To us this is not-ideal delivery method, but it has a definite meaning.
Looking at the thread, I think there is a clear dividing line. Native math speakers: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc... say 288. Others who are effectively non-native speakers may interpret 2 due to their lack of fluency.
B
I don't see how you can say that. None the less how anyone can confidently answer this question.
You arrive at 288 by multiplying 48/2 * (9+3), but that is assuming multiplication is the implied operator.
The way the equation is written, this question simply does not make sense. Parenthesis or something similar are needed to make this equation solvable.
You say you are fluent in mathematics, etc, but fluency requires proper syntax, which the equation simply does not have. If a professional gave me this problem to solve I would call them an idiot.
ChazUK
Apr 20, 01:46 AM
I don't see that happening. Apple tends to avoid complicated product lines. That is one too many options in my opinion.
Considering we have three tier (or more) systems with other Apple lines I don't see it as a total impossibility.
Mac Mini > iMac > Mac Pro
MacBook > MacBook Air > MacBook Pro
iPod Shuffle > Nano > Classic > Touch etc.
We'll have to wait and see how it all turns out!:)
Considering we have three tier (or more) systems with other Apple lines I don't see it as a total impossibility.
Mac Mini > iMac > Mac Pro
MacBook > MacBook Air > MacBook Pro
iPod Shuffle > Nano > Classic > Touch etc.
We'll have to wait and see how it all turns out!:)
HypersonicXIV
Apr 25, 08:42 AM
Oh wow, I am excited just at the thought that they might hopefully be heading in this direction, regardless of when it finally happens.
I'm a programmer and spend my day looking at text in an IDE on a couple of 27" cinema displays. When I look at my iPhone 4 and see how amazingly crisp and clear text is on the retina display and then look back to my computer screen, I weep quietly inside.
The 27" screens are beautiful, but the retina display on my phone just shows how amazing they could be.
I�m interested in what Apple will do with the 15� MBP. If Apple doubled the resolution of the 1440x900 display, then going from a 1680x1050 MBP to this new 2880x1800 MBP means an increase in DPI but a decrease in viewable information.
Hopefully they will include a scaling ability as well for those who don't mind shrinking everything down to fit more on the screen as well (which would address the problem mentioned above).
There is lots of potential for screens with such a high DPI :D
I'm a programmer and spend my day looking at text in an IDE on a couple of 27" cinema displays. When I look at my iPhone 4 and see how amazingly crisp and clear text is on the retina display and then look back to my computer screen, I weep quietly inside.
The 27" screens are beautiful, but the retina display on my phone just shows how amazing they could be.
I�m interested in what Apple will do with the 15� MBP. If Apple doubled the resolution of the 1440x900 display, then going from a 1680x1050 MBP to this new 2880x1800 MBP means an increase in DPI but a decrease in viewable information.
Hopefully they will include a scaling ability as well for those who don't mind shrinking everything down to fit more on the screen as well (which would address the problem mentioned above).
There is lots of potential for screens with such a high DPI :D