DavidLeblond
Apr 25, 11:07 AM
$5 says the next version of iOS will include a process to truncate consolidated.db just like Android does for locdump. Its not that Apple is USING all this historical data, its just that they neglected to toss in a function to trim the file.
kalsta
May 5, 03:22 PM
You're not stepping out onto the moon this time.
Talking about the cost of swtiching, I might just add� Stepping out onto the moon cost a pretty penny too. I guess beating the Soviets to bragging rights in space was more important than implementing common sense on the ground.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. � Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person.
Hang on� You're not distancing yourself from the illiterate masses now? I thought you agreed with them? ;)
Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population.
Well, I assume the US population ain't getting any smaller the longer you put it off.
Talking about the cost of swtiching, I might just add� Stepping out onto the moon cost a pretty penny too. I guess beating the Soviets to bragging rights in space was more important than implementing common sense on the ground.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. � Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person.
Hang on� You're not distancing yourself from the illiterate masses now? I thought you agreed with them? ;)
Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population.
Well, I assume the US population ain't getting any smaller the longer you put it off.
Cedd
Sep 11, 04:55 AM
Ooooh... how we used to dream of wheels made out of lead. Ours were made of depleted uranium. :eek:
You 'ad wheelbarrows and paper! Y'soft southern nancies...We 'ad to remember the binary code in our 'eads and if we got one number wrong our dads would kill us and dance on our shallow graves...
'onestly, kids today. :rolleyes:
You 'ad wheelbarrows and paper! Y'soft southern nancies...We 'ad to remember the binary code in our 'eads and if we got one number wrong our dads would kill us and dance on our shallow graves...
'onestly, kids today. :rolleyes:
NY Guitarist
Apr 21, 03:19 PM
Making the mac pro into a 3U format with optional rack mount ear would be ideal. However, to merge the Pro and Server market, I'd like to see:
1. At least 4 Hot Swap drive bays that don't require the unit being removed.
2. Redundant power supply option
3. I'd love for it to be less than 24" deep. Going 3U, this shouldn't be hard at all.
I agree with 1 & 3. 2 I could take or leave but it would be a necessity for server applications.
3RU would be 5.25", essentially 3 times the size of an XServe. Seems totally possible. The XServe at the studio where I used to work was one seriously loud box, and that's going to have to change.
IIRC the XServe had 4 drive bays on the front but not sure if they were hot swappable. I could see the possibility of 8 (or more) drive in more space efficient dual drive trays, although that would be less convenient for hot swap use, as you would have to take a drive offline that you may not want to swap.
1. At least 4 Hot Swap drive bays that don't require the unit being removed.
2. Redundant power supply option
3. I'd love for it to be less than 24" deep. Going 3U, this shouldn't be hard at all.
I agree with 1 & 3. 2 I could take or leave but it would be a necessity for server applications.
3RU would be 5.25", essentially 3 times the size of an XServe. Seems totally possible. The XServe at the studio where I used to work was one seriously loud box, and that's going to have to change.
IIRC the XServe had 4 drive bays on the front but not sure if they were hot swappable. I could see the possibility of 8 (or more) drive in more space efficient dual drive trays, although that would be less convenient for hot swap use, as you would have to take a drive offline that you may not want to swap.
kiljoy616
Apr 20, 12:47 AM
to really stay ahead of the market Apple will need to:
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar in the iPad 2
while keeping the same or improving the battery life
add a 64GB version
(possible 8 MP backlit CMOS sensor camera along side possible 1080p recording since the iPad can now output in full 1080p through HDMI)
Since it sounds like Apple is going to make us wait till September anything less than this rather reasonable list would be a major letdown while allowing the competition more time to get caught up.
Please site sources of when has Apple cared about staying ahead of an artificial market. I am trying to think of a time and they never really cared. They bring out what works when it works and that is why they do so well without having to have 100 products out all the time.
Nope Apple will take its time and do it right, as for a better camera really how big do you want to take your picture, I want sharper image and video not more gimmicky camera that don't hold their water. Faster response time on the UI would be welcome. The Snow Leopard of the phone business.
And for those that want 4G not sure if I care or want to see my battery go dead fast. I must admit 3G just does not seem slow to me and its more about location location location.
This article does not make me all warm inside about 4G for now.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-20046412-251.html
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar in the iPad 2
while keeping the same or improving the battery life
add a 64GB version
(possible 8 MP backlit CMOS sensor camera along side possible 1080p recording since the iPad can now output in full 1080p through HDMI)
Since it sounds like Apple is going to make us wait till September anything less than this rather reasonable list would be a major letdown while allowing the competition more time to get caught up.
Please site sources of when has Apple cared about staying ahead of an artificial market. I am trying to think of a time and they never really cared. They bring out what works when it works and that is why they do so well without having to have 100 products out all the time.
Nope Apple will take its time and do it right, as for a better camera really how big do you want to take your picture, I want sharper image and video not more gimmicky camera that don't hold their water. Faster response time on the UI would be welcome. The Snow Leopard of the phone business.
And for those that want 4G not sure if I care or want to see my battery go dead fast. I must admit 3G just does not seem slow to me and its more about location location location.
This article does not make me all warm inside about 4G for now.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-20046412-251.html
alexph
Mar 29, 01:45 PM
Guess this will affect iPod, iPhone and iPad - I wonder if that is the reason why iPhone5 will be dlayed till fall or even next year. Not much good in hyping up new products if many of your core components are unobtainable. I imagine that it not just batteries that all manufacturers will have problems with.
The Japanese are resilient, but it will take years for them to fully recover.
A
The Japanese are resilient, but it will take years for them to fully recover.
A
macenforcer
Aug 7, 08:33 PM
well I called back and upped the ram to 2 gigs which is what i consider the base really.
I just didnt want to go running around looking for ram to get to work.
Crucial doesnt have anything for the MacPro yet and I was fooled by the strange new words and the "you will have heat problems if you buy other ram from other makers that dont have heat sinks!"
What the??
So I feel for it and bit another 300 offa my wallet.
figure that with this base i can then search at a somewhat leisurely pace to get the other 4 gigs kits that will fit in the remaining slots.
Please someone tell me it was a smart move?
TIA
I was thinking this myself until I saw it was 4 x 512mb sticks. That just sucks. If it was 2 x 1gb sticks I would say not bad but its not good. Give crucial a few days to look into it. They guarantee compatibility, if it doesn't work you can return it. I am holding out for third party ram and staying with the 1gb base. Thank god its 1gb and not 512mb they usually throw at us.
Sorry to cast a shadow over your decision but hey if you can afford it who cares right.
I just didnt want to go running around looking for ram to get to work.
Crucial doesnt have anything for the MacPro yet and I was fooled by the strange new words and the "you will have heat problems if you buy other ram from other makers that dont have heat sinks!"
What the??
So I feel for it and bit another 300 offa my wallet.
figure that with this base i can then search at a somewhat leisurely pace to get the other 4 gigs kits that will fit in the remaining slots.
Please someone tell me it was a smart move?
TIA
I was thinking this myself until I saw it was 4 x 512mb sticks. That just sucks. If it was 2 x 1gb sticks I would say not bad but its not good. Give crucial a few days to look into it. They guarantee compatibility, if it doesn't work you can return it. I am holding out for third party ram and staying with the 1gb base. Thank god its 1gb and not 512mb they usually throw at us.
Sorry to cast a shadow over your decision but hey if you can afford it who cares right.
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:18 PM
SO in the Paris expo is where we'll most likely see updated MBP?They don't need a special event for what will most likely just be an updated processor.I am one who thinks the Merom MBP will be a new design including user installable HD like on the MB. :) So I am still thinking Paris Apple Expo. Apple loves the French. ;)
f00f
Mar 28, 10:49 AM
Pretty confident (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11923858&postcount=88) there won't be an iPhone 5 this summer. The CDMA phone was just launched. It really doesn't make sense to stagger the releases (CDMA in winter, GSM in summer); it makes much more sense to unify the devices. We don't want fragmentation, do we? But no way in hell it's going to happen four months after the CDMA launch. This makes as much sense as launching an iPad 3 in the so-called "year of iPad 2". :rolleyes:
timbloom
Apr 22, 12:24 PM
Go back and read my post please...thoroughly.
I am referring to the wider market. Sure, you manage 600+ Mac workstations. But on the grand scale of things, thats not worth anything to Apple.
Put it this way:
Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on redevelopment for an audience of, lets say 50,000 customers when you can spend the same amount on an audience of 1million+ customers. See my point? The server market for Apple is clearly not worth it. Yes, it sucks big time for people like yourself who rely on it, but at the end of the day Apple will focus on products that bring in cash, not products that break even at best.
Have you ever heard the phrase "all your eggs in one basket"? Diversification at Apple is very needed at the moment. Half of their profit comes from the sale of one device. Say that the iPhone 6 was a flop, imagine having to tell your investors you're losing 50% projected profit nearly overnight. Something like that can crush a company. You want diversification, and apple has the resources currently to really invest in some fairly stable markets such as enterprise. Currently their inroads are IOS in the enterprise, if they can leverage that to sell servers for management it will feed back on itself and support more mutual growth between mac and iOS in these coveted markets. Apple should have struck harder in this area during the vista debacle, but their mac team brushed off the opportunity.
A machine like this with dual purposes is a godsend for us. It means apple only needs production lines for one case, and we get a more flexible server and workstation in one. True hot swap bays on a mac?! F-yeah! I can convince my clients to hook up a rackmount mac pro server in their data center or server closet. LOM is nice, but I don't think it's going to be a make or break deal in most businesses. I don't see why it either couldn't be an optional module with the Server preconfig, or on all of them with the prices apple charges.
The server market is the backbone of the business market. Macs will be niche in enterprise as long as the backbone isn't there, and stronger than last time.
I am referring to the wider market. Sure, you manage 600+ Mac workstations. But on the grand scale of things, thats not worth anything to Apple.
Put it this way:
Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on redevelopment for an audience of, lets say 50,000 customers when you can spend the same amount on an audience of 1million+ customers. See my point? The server market for Apple is clearly not worth it. Yes, it sucks big time for people like yourself who rely on it, but at the end of the day Apple will focus on products that bring in cash, not products that break even at best.
Have you ever heard the phrase "all your eggs in one basket"? Diversification at Apple is very needed at the moment. Half of their profit comes from the sale of one device. Say that the iPhone 6 was a flop, imagine having to tell your investors you're losing 50% projected profit nearly overnight. Something like that can crush a company. You want diversification, and apple has the resources currently to really invest in some fairly stable markets such as enterprise. Currently their inroads are IOS in the enterprise, if they can leverage that to sell servers for management it will feed back on itself and support more mutual growth between mac and iOS in these coveted markets. Apple should have struck harder in this area during the vista debacle, but their mac team brushed off the opportunity.
A machine like this with dual purposes is a godsend for us. It means apple only needs production lines for one case, and we get a more flexible server and workstation in one. True hot swap bays on a mac?! F-yeah! I can convince my clients to hook up a rackmount mac pro server in their data center or server closet. LOM is nice, but I don't think it's going to be a make or break deal in most businesses. I don't see why it either couldn't be an optional module with the Server preconfig, or on all of them with the prices apple charges.
The server market is the backbone of the business market. Macs will be niche in enterprise as long as the backbone isn't there, and stronger than last time.
SactoGuy18
Apr 20, 07:04 AM
Let's see - the iPad 2 had a faster CPU and has the same/better battery life. So where is your logic?
And you know how Apple did it? By increasing the size of the battery pack itself.
As for the iPhone 5, I think in the end the device will most likely spec out like this:
1. Will look like a "thicker" 4G iPod touch but with a much-improved metal-band surround antenna that is not so susceptible to the "grip of death" antenna reception issues.
2. The backing will no longer use glass. Don't be surprised if the backing uses LiquidMetal (maybe carbon fiber if Apple can figure out a way to manufacture it at reasonable cost).
3. Display is now a full 4" IPS LCD touchscreen.
4. It will use A5 dual-core CPU/GPU.
5. It may get a RAM bump from 512 MB to 768 MB.
6. Flash memory storage options are still 16 and 32 GB, but in a smaller physical size for flash memory module.
7. Battery size will get bigger for longer battery life.
8. Will add Bluetooth 4.0 functionality.
9. Will likely add full near-field communications (NFC) functionality, including full compatibility with the Sony FeliCa system widely used in eastern Asia.
10. Will NOT add Thunderbolt I/O, since it would be overkill and few devices support the Thunderbolt I/O anyway.
And you know how Apple did it? By increasing the size of the battery pack itself.
As for the iPhone 5, I think in the end the device will most likely spec out like this:
1. Will look like a "thicker" 4G iPod touch but with a much-improved metal-band surround antenna that is not so susceptible to the "grip of death" antenna reception issues.
2. The backing will no longer use glass. Don't be surprised if the backing uses LiquidMetal (maybe carbon fiber if Apple can figure out a way to manufacture it at reasonable cost).
3. Display is now a full 4" IPS LCD touchscreen.
4. It will use A5 dual-core CPU/GPU.
5. It may get a RAM bump from 512 MB to 768 MB.
6. Flash memory storage options are still 16 and 32 GB, but in a smaller physical size for flash memory module.
7. Battery size will get bigger for longer battery life.
8. Will add Bluetooth 4.0 functionality.
9. Will likely add full near-field communications (NFC) functionality, including full compatibility with the Sony FeliCa system widely used in eastern Asia.
10. Will NOT add Thunderbolt I/O, since it would be overkill and few devices support the Thunderbolt I/O anyway.
richard.mac
Apr 9, 08:41 PM
i worked it out as 288 using BODMAS order, or PEDMAS as you americans call it :P
good idea to use Wolfram, that thing is pretty insane, and even Google can do it! step it up OS X calculator! :D
EDIT: Spotlight is giving me 288.
oh! looks like you just need to add an asterisk
good idea to use Wolfram, that thing is pretty insane, and even Google can do it! step it up OS X calculator! :D
EDIT: Spotlight is giving me 288.
oh! looks like you just need to add an asterisk
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 08:34 PM
i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
I 150% agree! Cell communications need to open up. Contracts and locked phones will keep the phone industry from growing and maturing in the same way computers did.
What Apple has to rely on is the eventual tendency of companies' adversarial and predatory tendencies to overcome their collective complacency. This could take quite a while.
Consider this. Let's say Apple does something along the lines we're predicting, and sells their phones. Before we plunk down our money, we go around to the various cell carriers and inquire if they'll let us bring our phone to their network. They say either "NO!" or "Not at this time."
Do you still spend your money on Apple's product? I mean, what good's a cell phone (especially if it's more than just a few dollars) if you can't even talk to anybody on it? So, the cell phone companies basically keep Apple from going anywhere, and since they would do this from the start, they could ultimately report back to their bosses (and then onto their shareholders) that, "Oh no, we didn't really screw ourselves out of a lucrative market." on the premise that it isn't lucrative until tons of people are in that market (none of whom would be, since this is basically a giant "chicken-n-egg" scenario with the onus and the expense all stuck squarely on the shoulders of the general public.)
What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.
It could operate something like how Claris used to work, being a division (but a spun-off one) of Apple. It would be an interesting back-door type of approach to the whole equation.
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
I 150% agree! Cell communications need to open up. Contracts and locked phones will keep the phone industry from growing and maturing in the same way computers did.
What Apple has to rely on is the eventual tendency of companies' adversarial and predatory tendencies to overcome their collective complacency. This could take quite a while.
Consider this. Let's say Apple does something along the lines we're predicting, and sells their phones. Before we plunk down our money, we go around to the various cell carriers and inquire if they'll let us bring our phone to their network. They say either "NO!" or "Not at this time."
Do you still spend your money on Apple's product? I mean, what good's a cell phone (especially if it's more than just a few dollars) if you can't even talk to anybody on it? So, the cell phone companies basically keep Apple from going anywhere, and since they would do this from the start, they could ultimately report back to their bosses (and then onto their shareholders) that, "Oh no, we didn't really screw ourselves out of a lucrative market." on the premise that it isn't lucrative until tons of people are in that market (none of whom would be, since this is basically a giant "chicken-n-egg" scenario with the onus and the expense all stuck squarely on the shoulders of the general public.)
What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.
It could operate something like how Claris used to work, being a division (but a spun-off one) of Apple. It would be an interesting back-door type of approach to the whole equation.
mmomega
May 4, 02:58 PM
That's great that it installs a partition.
So my warranty is out and I want to install a brand new SSD.
I've upgraded only about a dozen friends' MacBooks to SSD and w/o the grey disc that came with the computer you're screwed. Retail copy won't work.
again, I'm completely fine with having any app in the world as download only. Great, it's faster.
Some never do a full reinstall, that's the majority, but you do still have those that work on these machines and some times you need the physical media.
So my warranty is out and I want to install a brand new SSD.
I've upgraded only about a dozen friends' MacBooks to SSD and w/o the grey disc that came with the computer you're screwed. Retail copy won't work.
again, I'm completely fine with having any app in the world as download only. Great, it's faster.
Some never do a full reinstall, that's the majority, but you do still have those that work on these machines and some times you need the physical media.
KindredMAC
Aug 7, 05:22 PM
I am very much a pro user and I very much have no use for airport or bluetooth. So I'm glad that it's not being forced on me.
I'm a Pro too...BUT I did get my PM G5 with APE and BT installed and I DO think they should be standard.
My reasoning was the "Future" and "Wirelessness".
I knew that my Airport Extreme station sits right above my set up on a shelf, but I don't know where my G5 might end up down the road in my house, especially if I finish my basement and put a seperate Studio in there. I will probably need to put the Airport somewhere in the middle of the house so our laptops can still get it put not right where the G5 is.
As for BT... #1 Reason- Wireless Keyboard, Mouse and Tablets.
#2 Reason- Many rumors have circulated for almost a year of possible BT integration into the iPods. Maybe for Headphones? Maybe for file transfers? Who knows at this point! So I wanted it JUST IN CASE. As it is, you can't add those items after market into the Macs so why not do it now.
As for "forcing" a tech on someone, I think FW 800 is a forcing of tech on people. I don't need FW 800. I make use of it because it is there in place of extra FW 400 plugs. I would like to know how many out there use their FW 800 ports on their G5's and for what. Ya know what I use mine for? My 3G iPod. Whuppdy Doo!
I'm a Pro too...BUT I did get my PM G5 with APE and BT installed and I DO think they should be standard.
My reasoning was the "Future" and "Wirelessness".
I knew that my Airport Extreme station sits right above my set up on a shelf, but I don't know where my G5 might end up down the road in my house, especially if I finish my basement and put a seperate Studio in there. I will probably need to put the Airport somewhere in the middle of the house so our laptops can still get it put not right where the G5 is.
As for BT... #1 Reason- Wireless Keyboard, Mouse and Tablets.
#2 Reason- Many rumors have circulated for almost a year of possible BT integration into the iPods. Maybe for Headphones? Maybe for file transfers? Who knows at this point! So I wanted it JUST IN CASE. As it is, you can't add those items after market into the Macs so why not do it now.
As for "forcing" a tech on someone, I think FW 800 is a forcing of tech on people. I don't need FW 800. I make use of it because it is there in place of extra FW 400 plugs. I would like to know how many out there use their FW 800 ports on their G5's and for what. Ya know what I use mine for? My 3G iPod. Whuppdy Doo!
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.
tonyoramos1
Apr 24, 01:11 PM
More likely that they are producing a higher res iMac display first.
And this site has the most archaic, convoluted commenting sign-up/system I have ever seen. It should be abolished and replaced with Facebook Comments. How many distinctions of value are there really to be said about feature-limited Mac products anyway. Don't mistake this as a critique of Apple.
And this site has the most archaic, convoluted commenting sign-up/system I have ever seen. It should be abolished and replaced with Facebook Comments. How many distinctions of value are there really to be said about feature-limited Mac products anyway. Don't mistake this as a critique of Apple.
munkery
Nov 2, 09:29 PM
Java on any platform is able to download payloads for Windows. Most likely Windows malware that the AV software found. Java can usually be turned off fairly easily in client side apps, as in Safari, if you don't use it. Beyond turning Java off, user knowledge can keep you safe from trojans. For example, don't provide password and authenticate for installers that you have not explicitly double clicked; then the payload is not able to install itself in your system. Java applets should not require password authentication so that is a good sign of a malicious payload. You can clean it out manually via finder or on demand scan using ClamXav.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 11, 02:42 AM
Has anyone ever considered that the media mac would not be a hardware upgrade to the mini but a software one via itunes 7
or is it just me?
I think you need both. I can't imagine that Apple want us to get a DVR on top of a Media Mac, so a Mediad Mac should have a built in TV-tuner. I wouldn't be surprised if this gadget also double as an Airport Extreme.
or is it just me?
I think you need both. I can't imagine that Apple want us to get a DVR on top of a Media Mac, so a Mediad Mac should have a built in TV-tuner. I wouldn't be surprised if this gadget also double as an Airport Extreme.
balamw
May 2, 08:04 PM
a lb. of butter is still called a lb. of butter here in Canada
When growing up in Europe in the 70s a pound was simply redefined as 500 g. For most purposes the 10% error is insignificant.
Volume units (1 liter = 1 quart) work similarly, and 1-2 liter containers are fairly common even here in the US.
B
When growing up in Europe in the 70s a pound was simply redefined as 500 g. For most purposes the 10% error is insignificant.
Volume units (1 liter = 1 quart) work similarly, and 1-2 liter containers are fairly common even here in the US.
B
Jape
Nov 4, 03:15 PM
I was doing some research on bottom line telecommunications and i came across these good reviews: :D
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
milozauckerman
Aug 7, 02:47 PM
For those of you hoping for a mid-range tower, you're looking at it. Take the processor down from dual 2.66Ghz to dual 2.0 and the HD down from 250GB to 160, and you're looking at a $2124 machine.
So if I want a mid-range tower, I can configured it to have less RAM, a smaller HD and a completely useless graphics card, and still come in $200-300 more than a comparable machine from Dell/Gateway/etc.? Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
So if I want a mid-range tower, I can configured it to have less RAM, a smaller HD and a completely useless graphics card, and still come in $200-300 more than a comparable machine from Dell/Gateway/etc.? Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
toujames
Apr 21, 11:22 PM
Steve: "Introducing, the new iRack!" :D
tuna
Mar 29, 09:51 AM
I still don't get how this is better than Dropbox, hopefully it can compete with Dropbox though to make the service better.
I am up to 7GB I believe of free storage on Dropbox too.
And what's the point of having 5GB of data in the cloud if mobile data plans only allow you to download 2GB?
I am so tired of hearing about this.... Do you think that when somebody makes a game for the Wii, 360 or PS3, that Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony don't make any money from it?
Its a false analogy. Game systems are developed and marketed at a loss (at least for a while) and royalties on game sales help make up for it. This is how it has been historically.
iOS is a computing platform. It is not the status quo for the OS developer to seek royalties from the software that runs on it. And further, iOS hardware is outrageously profitable in itself.
I am up to 7GB I believe of free storage on Dropbox too.
And what's the point of having 5GB of data in the cloud if mobile data plans only allow you to download 2GB?
I am so tired of hearing about this.... Do you think that when somebody makes a game for the Wii, 360 or PS3, that Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony don't make any money from it?
Its a false analogy. Game systems are developed and marketed at a loss (at least for a while) and royalties on game sales help make up for it. This is how it has been historically.
iOS is a computing platform. It is not the status quo for the OS developer to seek royalties from the software that runs on it. And further, iOS hardware is outrageously profitable in itself.