dj2mc
Nov 28, 12:51 AM
awful program
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
TBH, probably wasn't the AV.. when you dual boot there are so many bugs that go on w/ OSX. I never dual boot anymore because it would always lock my Mac up..
I saw a lady today at the Apple Store, and goes to the Genius Bar.. and the first thing she says "Hi, I am having troubles with my iMac, I dual booted through Boot Camp w/ Windows 7, and it crashed my Mac." I LOL'd and the genius's confirmed it was the cause of dual boot. I don't trust it... not one bit.
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
TBH, probably wasn't the AV.. when you dual boot there are so many bugs that go on w/ OSX. I never dual boot anymore because it would always lock my Mac up..
I saw a lady today at the Apple Store, and goes to the Genius Bar.. and the first thing she says "Hi, I am having troubles with my iMac, I dual booted through Boot Camp w/ Windows 7, and it crashed my Mac." I LOL'd and the genius's confirmed it was the cause of dual boot. I don't trust it... not one bit.
ikir
Apr 20, 04:36 AM
Why do we still call it iPhone 5? Everything points to iPhone 4S.
Indeed, I agree. I hope form factor stay the same as now since I have 4 bumpers, I will gift iPhone and a pink bumper to my girl. iPhone 4 is awesome it doesn't need a big revamp now... Sure more power always the better but I think users (me too) pretend too much nowadays.
Indeed, I agree. I hope form factor stay the same as now since I have 4 bumpers, I will gift iPhone and a pink bumper to my girl. iPhone 4 is awesome it doesn't need a big revamp now... Sure more power always the better but I think users (me too) pretend too much nowadays.
iZac
Mar 28, 11:14 AM
Capacity bump now, full update September(ish)?
DomC
Apr 5, 09:32 PM
I think Apple was just nervous that Toyota would follow up the theme with a notification system that was more than just a centered blue box.
finalcut
Apr 20, 05:58 AM
if the faster processor is the only upgrade, then I wont change my iphone 4 to 5 just like I did from 3G to 3GS. My wife will just wait more on my iphone 4 hehe
AppleDroid
May 6, 01:02 AM
Unless ARM has something major in the works (low power, huge speed increase, flux capacitor etc) I don't understand the need to move away from Intel.
I will take this for what it's worth, a total shot in the dark from two years away. Also as long as there isn't a major issue switching architecture (PPC - Intel + Rosetta bleh) I could care less as long as Adobe can keep up. (haha, I know I know)
I will take this for what it's worth, a total shot in the dark from two years away. Also as long as there isn't a major issue switching architecture (PPC - Intel + Rosetta bleh) I could care less as long as Adobe can keep up. (haha, I know I know)
Joshuarocks
Apr 25, 08:00 AM
Bit harsh :P
Bit harsh, but true.
Bit harsh, but true.
mscriv
May 3, 01:44 PM
Awaiting confirmation from mscriv. In the meanwhile, one slot is still open.
Ok, I'm in. Now where did I put those....
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmHh4sTAvx49pmmr5IYddZOPj92x-0Z4zTW1mLDtuWSLoj7s8whTMf9E9n
And just so we're all clear, I'm definitely Chaotic Good. :D
Ok, I'm in. Now where did I put those....
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmHh4sTAvx49pmmr5IYddZOPj92x-0Z4zTW1mLDtuWSLoj7s8whTMf9E9n
And just so we're all clear, I'm definitely Chaotic Good. :D
Peace
Sep 11, 02:20 PM
Man..I can't think of anything that hasn't been mentioned here yet..
I'll add :
Sony HD Blue Ray Optical Drives for Mac Pros and external drives for other Macs.
Airport A/V with Blue Ray Drive and Hard Drive..
and one more thing..
Whirled Peas:D
I'll add :
Sony HD Blue Ray Optical Drives for Mac Pros and external drives for other Macs.
Airport A/V with Blue Ray Drive and Hard Drive..
and one more thing..
Whirled Peas:D
Molnies
Sep 15, 04:36 PM
I sure hope we will see Aperture 2.0 and not just 1.2...
Starbuckfsd
Apr 25, 08:23 AM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/23/apple-including-ultra-high-resolution-artwork-in-lion-for-possible-retina-displays/)
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/23/171415-background.jpg)
A finding earlier this month (http://osxdaily.com/2011/04/02/new-mt-fuji-wallpaper-in-mac-os-x-lion-developer-preview-2/) by OSXDaily has generated some speculation about Apple's plans for "Retina" display Macs. The Mac OS X Lion Developer Preview 2 released in late March (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/30/apple-releases-mac-os-x-lion-developer-preview-2/) included an ultra-high resolution version of the background desktop image at a resolution of 3200x2000. A few observers noted (http://punchingin.com/chasing-the-6-4-megapixel-unicorn/) that this is higher than any Apple display has ever supported, generating speculation (http://theelaborated.net/blog/2011/4/13/consider-the-retina-display.html) that Apple is preparing for "Retina" display Macs in the near future.
We had previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/mac-os-x-lion-building-in-support-for-super-high-resolution-retina-monitors/) that Mac OS X Lion has made some under-the-hood changes opening the door to such super-high resolution displays. Now, MacMagazine.com.br has found (http://macmagazine.com.br/2011/04/23/macs-com-telas-retina-nao-sao-duvida-quando-eles-chegarao-sim-ainda-e-uma-incognita/) that Apple is already starting to include other super high resolution artwork in Lion. They found several icons stored as 1024x1024 sizes, up from a previous maximum of 512x512.
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/23/171147-23-lion_appstore.png)
Click for full-size
Of course, this support for super high resolution displays is only the first step, but suggests Apple is planning ahead when the hardware becomes available.
Article Link: Apple Including Ultra High Resolution Artwork in Lion for Possible Retina Displays? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/23/apple-including-ultra-high-resolution-artwork-in-lion-for-possible-retina-displays/)
Oh please. Give me a break! Do you nitwits HONESTLY think there will be retina display Macs in the near future? It's total BS. If they did, the cost of said Macs would be prohibitive to the general public. Why do you think there aren't retina display iPads? IT'S TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE! C'mon guys...you're beginning to sound like CNET
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/23/171415-background.jpg)
A finding earlier this month (http://osxdaily.com/2011/04/02/new-mt-fuji-wallpaper-in-mac-os-x-lion-developer-preview-2/) by OSXDaily has generated some speculation about Apple's plans for "Retina" display Macs. The Mac OS X Lion Developer Preview 2 released in late March (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/30/apple-releases-mac-os-x-lion-developer-preview-2/) included an ultra-high resolution version of the background desktop image at a resolution of 3200x2000. A few observers noted (http://punchingin.com/chasing-the-6-4-megapixel-unicorn/) that this is higher than any Apple display has ever supported, generating speculation (http://theelaborated.net/blog/2011/4/13/consider-the-retina-display.html) that Apple is preparing for "Retina" display Macs in the near future.
We had previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/mac-os-x-lion-building-in-support-for-super-high-resolution-retina-monitors/) that Mac OS X Lion has made some under-the-hood changes opening the door to such super-high resolution displays. Now, MacMagazine.com.br has found (http://macmagazine.com.br/2011/04/23/macs-com-telas-retina-nao-sao-duvida-quando-eles-chegarao-sim-ainda-e-uma-incognita/) that Apple is already starting to include other super high resolution artwork in Lion. They found several icons stored as 1024x1024 sizes, up from a previous maximum of 512x512.
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/23/171147-23-lion_appstore.png)
Click for full-size
Of course, this support for super high resolution displays is only the first step, but suggests Apple is planning ahead when the hardware becomes available.
Article Link: Apple Including Ultra High Resolution Artwork in Lion for Possible Retina Displays? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/23/apple-including-ultra-high-resolution-artwork-in-lion-for-possible-retina-displays/)
Oh please. Give me a break! Do you nitwits HONESTLY think there will be retina display Macs in the near future? It's total BS. If they did, the cost of said Macs would be prohibitive to the general public. Why do you think there aren't retina display iPads? IT'S TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE! C'mon guys...you're beginning to sound like CNET
tonyoramos1
Apr 24, 01:48 PM
@KnightWRX
Glad we agree, but who would ever purchase an ACD? Buying an overpriced, inferiorly performing, glare-crazy Apple display device is the height of Apple brainwashing.
It says a lot that my education college professors owned several back when they were $3000, yet complained about budget cuts. You know the study: Mac users are statistically hippy liberal douches. Like VW Bug owners.
Glad we agree, but who would ever purchase an ACD? Buying an overpriced, inferiorly performing, glare-crazy Apple display device is the height of Apple brainwashing.
It says a lot that my education college professors owned several back when they were $3000, yet complained about budget cuts. You know the study: Mac users are statistically hippy liberal douches. Like VW Bug owners.
lkrupp
Apr 7, 10:14 AM
I'd rather have Apple ( or ANY company for that matter ) compete rather than having it throttle its competition.
When a compay has no competition it often gets lazy and uninnovative. Is this what you want with Apple?
So you want Apple to be forced by the government to reduce its manufacturing, tell its customers "sorry, no iPad for you" because the competition needs to catch up? How stupid is that?:rolleyes:
When a compay has no competition it often gets lazy and uninnovative. Is this what you want with Apple?
So you want Apple to be forced by the government to reduce its manufacturing, tell its customers "sorry, no iPad for you" because the competition needs to catch up? How stupid is that?:rolleyes:
MacAddict1978
Apr 25, 10:42 AM
And with the patriot act the telecos let the government move in and access data without warrants. Yet everyone seems fine with this. However, the instant your phone has a database of cell phone towers it is something nefarious. Sigh. It really would be nice if the real privacy concerns were addressed and not this low hanging fruit of a cache on your phone.
Agreed. Google's darling Android doesn't just track cell towers. They've found it recording wi-fi networks near the user as well and transmitting that data... like every couple of minutes. (No wonder the batteries don't last on droid for more than 3-5 hours). I wish I could find the link to the article I read that in. It's certain models that have been found to do it.... right down to your GPS coordinates. Why does Google need to know this? And their users are now inadvertently spying on other people. Google has no rights to info on my wi-fi network just because someone drove past my house with an Android phone in the car.
Yet I use Google every day, but I at least know they're watching me.
http://youtu.be/7YvAYIJSSZY
Agreed. Google's darling Android doesn't just track cell towers. They've found it recording wi-fi networks near the user as well and transmitting that data... like every couple of minutes. (No wonder the batteries don't last on droid for more than 3-5 hours). I wish I could find the link to the article I read that in. It's certain models that have been found to do it.... right down to your GPS coordinates. Why does Google need to know this? And their users are now inadvertently spying on other people. Google has no rights to info on my wi-fi network just because someone drove past my house with an Android phone in the car.
Yet I use Google every day, but I at least know they're watching me.
http://youtu.be/7YvAYIJSSZY
Funkymonk
Apr 26, 03:54 PM
In for the unwarranted android hate even though it's a personal choice and impacts our personal lives in no way! :p
those android using smug filthy bastards. we should get together and put them in camps of some kind and reeducate them of the greatness of iphones and terminate the ones who don't oblige to our views :D
those android using smug filthy bastards. we should get together and put them in camps of some kind and reeducate them of the greatness of iphones and terminate the ones who don't oblige to our views :D
maclaptop
Apr 26, 02:12 PM
Who cares? I thought this was macrumors not android news...
Android scares the hell out of Apple :eek:
Android scares the hell out of Apple :eek:
ChrisTX
Apr 20, 05:34 AM
I dont agree. A 4" screen would be larger real estate, but that would mean developers would have to rewrite their apps to fit the new size. For example, the iPad has an obviously larger screen space, which means that developers had to scale their software up to match, because lets face it, the 2x button just makes things look like pixels and thats just awful, this is not SNES system.
But the iPad has similar dimensions and screen ratio. But a 4" display would makes things look stretched, so developers would have to code each app to fit the new stretched screen. This would also be quite annoying on the app store, looking for apps which work on 3g, 3gs, i4 and i5 and iPad and iPad 2. It would just become a nuisance to download an app to see its stretched on older phones. this wouldn't be a good move by apple just yet. Apple like to care for older tech users, the 3g and 3gs users, and this larger screen would make apps not run as smoothly.
Have you ever tried to run any iPhone apps on the iPad? Have you not noticed that what they scale down to is a size larger than the iPhone's current 3.5" size? Not sure why Apple chose a size slightly larger than 3.5" but none the less they scale just fine.
But the iPad has similar dimensions and screen ratio. But a 4" display would makes things look stretched, so developers would have to code each app to fit the new stretched screen. This would also be quite annoying on the app store, looking for apps which work on 3g, 3gs, i4 and i5 and iPad and iPad 2. It would just become a nuisance to download an app to see its stretched on older phones. this wouldn't be a good move by apple just yet. Apple like to care for older tech users, the 3g and 3gs users, and this larger screen would make apps not run as smoothly.
Have you ever tried to run any iPhone apps on the iPad? Have you not noticed that what they scale down to is a size larger than the iPhone's current 3.5" size? Not sure why Apple chose a size slightly larger than 3.5" but none the less they scale just fine.
azilnik
Aug 2, 09:56 PM
Hm. Hey guys... I'm a longtime reader of MR. I always read your comments and never recall posting (Creepy, eh?)
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.
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.
entatlrg
Apr 7, 12:10 PM
RIM was the smartphone market for a brief period of time, they really should be doing better than what they are right now.
RIM didn't have any vision, though, and were eclipsed by Apple and Google.
I owned a BB Storm and it was a piece of junk, the Torch fell flat and now the Playbook has been delayed.
I wonder who is going to buy RIM out, they are in desperate need of a hit product. RIM needs a halo product as badly as Apple did before the iPod came out.
Very well said.
One Rim founder spent too much time trying to buy hockey teams, the other founder too much time building science centers .... meanwhile Steve was dreaming up cool products and turning them into reality. Well done, Steve :apple:
RIM didn't have any vision, though, and were eclipsed by Apple and Google.
I owned a BB Storm and it was a piece of junk, the Torch fell flat and now the Playbook has been delayed.
I wonder who is going to buy RIM out, they are in desperate need of a hit product. RIM needs a halo product as badly as Apple did before the iPod came out.
Very well said.
One Rim founder spent too much time trying to buy hockey teams, the other founder too much time building science centers .... meanwhile Steve was dreaming up cool products and turning them into reality. Well done, Steve :apple:
0815
Apr 25, 09:01 AM
Call me naive (or perhaps paranoid) but I've been assuming my location is being tracked since I bought my first smart phone years ago.
I guess the fine point of difference is: It is stored on your phone (and computer where you do the backup), but it is never send to anyone ... so Apple is not tracking you since they never see that information. Saying Apple tracks you would mean that information collected is send to Apple, which is not the case.
I guess the fine point of difference is: It is stored on your phone (and computer where you do the backup), but it is never send to anyone ... so Apple is not tracking you since they never see that information. Saying Apple tracks you would mean that information collected is send to Apple, which is not the case.
PlipPlop
Apr 26, 03:26 PM
I wonder if there will be 400k new Android phone a day soon. The power of Android cannot be stopped now.
marksman
Mar 29, 05:43 PM
God hates us listening to music.
huntson
Apr 21, 04:36 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/21/152122-mac_pro_2010_inside.jpg)
Inside Apple's current Mac Pro
According to 9 to 5 Mac, Apple is "toying with" a redesigned prototype (http://www.9to5mac.com/63107/prototype-next-gen-mac-pro-detailed-redesigned-rackable-stackable/) for its Mac Pro line, narrowing the design from its current 8.1-inch width to something slightly over 5 inches wide. Combined with a slight reduction in height to around 19 inches, the redesign would apparently allow the Mac Pro to be rackmountable in server cabinets as a 3U component.Apple of course used to offer its dedicated Xserve product line offering a thinner 1U component for rackmountable use, but the company discontinued the line (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-discontinues-xserve-only-available-until-january-31st/) as of January 31st of this year. The company has since introduced a new "server" configuration (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-releases-new-server-configuration-of-mac-pro-to-replace-xserve/) of the Mac Pro, but a redesign to accommodate both standard upright orientation and a sideways rackmounted one would likely be a welcome move for server fans despite the significant increase in rack space required.
The report claims that Apple has developed a "stacked" drive configuration utilizing sleds capable of handling two conventional or solid state hard drives apiece, increasing the density of drives in an attempt to squeeze all of the existing components into the smaller form factor while still preserving space for expandability.
Apple's Mac Pro was last updated (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/27/apple-announces-new-mac-pros-with-up-to-12-cores-ssd-options/) in late July, meaning that the line could be due for an update (http://www.macrumors.com/buyersguide/#Mac_Pro), although the company has been stretching out its Mac Pro product cycles over the past few years.
Article Link: Apple Developing Narrower, Rackmountable Mac Pro Prototypes? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
So rude - server "Fans" - there are server users too - not just a fanclub like your base of readers, but actual people who use the stuff.
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/21/152122-mac_pro_2010_inside.jpg)
Inside Apple's current Mac Pro
According to 9 to 5 Mac, Apple is "toying with" a redesigned prototype (http://www.9to5mac.com/63107/prototype-next-gen-mac-pro-detailed-redesigned-rackable-stackable/) for its Mac Pro line, narrowing the design from its current 8.1-inch width to something slightly over 5 inches wide. Combined with a slight reduction in height to around 19 inches, the redesign would apparently allow the Mac Pro to be rackmountable in server cabinets as a 3U component.Apple of course used to offer its dedicated Xserve product line offering a thinner 1U component for rackmountable use, but the company discontinued the line (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-discontinues-xserve-only-available-until-january-31st/) as of January 31st of this year. The company has since introduced a new "server" configuration (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-releases-new-server-configuration-of-mac-pro-to-replace-xserve/) of the Mac Pro, but a redesign to accommodate both standard upright orientation and a sideways rackmounted one would likely be a welcome move for server fans despite the significant increase in rack space required.
The report claims that Apple has developed a "stacked" drive configuration utilizing sleds capable of handling two conventional or solid state hard drives apiece, increasing the density of drives in an attempt to squeeze all of the existing components into the smaller form factor while still preserving space for expandability.
Apple's Mac Pro was last updated (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/27/apple-announces-new-mac-pros-with-up-to-12-cores-ssd-options/) in late July, meaning that the line could be due for an update (http://www.macrumors.com/buyersguide/#Mac_Pro), although the company has been stretching out its Mac Pro product cycles over the past few years.
Article Link: Apple Developing Narrower, Rackmountable Mac Pro Prototypes? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
So rude - server "Fans" - there are server users too - not just a fanclub like your base of readers, but actual people who use the stuff.