Now you are just clutching at straws, you said things like build quality and design are subjective, I'll give you design, but build quality is not. You can asses the build quality of an item without making measurements dude: does everything line up, what are the gaps like, consistent? small? Any casting dags or machine marks present?
The macbook pro is universally regarded as being built to a high standard compared to most laptops. I don't need to get out the micrometer to justify that claim.
Comparing specifications is the only objective measure we have. Things like build quality and design are subjective, and while you may think they are objectively better that may be far from the truth, and is quite hard to prove.
As a Mechanical engineering major, I find that comment completely ludicrous. In the field of engineering, build quality is absolutely a quantifiable metric, and specified right from the design stage to the manufacturing stage. Words like: 'tolerance', 'surface finish', 'material grade', 'rigidity', etc. are all build quality specifications.
Who gives a shit? It's a laptop, not the god damn space shuttle.
You see this is the problem, to many people this shit matters. I give a shit about this stuff, I really do, and I'll pay a few extra $$ to get it. But as I recently discovered, with the MBP I really don't have to, hence I consider it a good deal.
This is why angry/. geeks don't understand Apple, there are people out there who will pay a few extra dollars for external quality, you only have to look at premium consumer brand to recognise this. And for the record I don't like Apple, I don't like OSX, I absolutely hate the Apple superiority cult, but I respect their industrial design.
I've had my hands on plenty of MBP's and I cannot agree with any of your complaints, the touchpad is anything but crap, and how can you completely overlook the build quality of the case? I'll agree with one point: the keyboard quality is pretty crap, but then it is unfortunately of a higher standard than most these days.
Yes they do, but not $1000 worth of video card. As I said my main criteria was overall design and build quality, and this is the problem for me: you want a nice design and high quality build? Your only choice is top of the line, overpriced stuff, and the MBP.
Even the 15" MBP with good graphics is a better deal than either of the laptops I listed.
I was referring more to the build quality. How tight are the tolerances? How closely does the lid match the body? How much flex is there in the chassis? How much play in the hinge? Etc.
I have heard they get hot, so does my HP Thinkpad, it gets extremely hot (and also features a reasonably high build quality). Have you compared the temperature of you MBP to that of a high end Vaio, Dell Studio, or similarly positioned laptop?
You can't deny the MBP is built to a high standard, thats just a dumb thing to say (unless you've never actually picked one up). Yes the components inside are the same, no the internals are not the sum of the unit. The thing is at the higher end, MBP is competitive in pricing, I recently spent a long time searching for my next laptop, and high end build quality was an important factor on my list. The reality I was faced with (as someone who has lived a lifetime of hating all things Apple) is that the MBP is generally a bit cheaper than its competitors if you factor in design and build quality.
Matching component for component is not a good measure, I don't want to pull out a thick plastic piece of junk every time I go to use my laptop. Call me fickle, but I don't care.
The thing is, at the entry level, Macbook Pros are actually extremely good value. Before I go on I'll just note that I'm far from an Apple fanboy and I live in Australia where prices are less than optimal. Now the lowest spec 13" MBP is $1200 ($1400 in AU), for that you get cpu performance equal to that of the previous generation (2010 model) 17" MBP, you get an extremely well crafted enclosure with a nice design in a portable form factor. I have been shopping around for a new laptop and for me the key points were: small, light, attractive, powerful. My options were basically Vaio, Dell XPS studio, HP Envy or Macbook Pro. The MBP was cheaper than all the other options with the nicest design (Australian market here, prices differ quite dramatically). Apple also offer me a student discount, and a free iPod.
I don't like Apple, I really don't (I DO however very much like their industrial design), but I shopped around for a long time and the MBP came up as the best value laptop within my reach. I could have gone down and bought some ugly thick plastic fantastic with better specs for less, but as I said it was crucial to me to have a nice design and a slim package. I'll grant that the MBP cost does not scale well with options, particularly if you opt for alterations when you buy. That said I think I've scored a ridiculously good deal, I'll be installing my own SSD and expect that to reap far more performance gains than bumping up the CPU (at $300 premium no less).
FWIW I was looking at the 14" HP Envy for $2400, the Vaio Z at $3000, or the MBP 13" at $1270 with a free iPod, these are Australian prices.
But where do you go to configure network properties? It's a goddamn easter egg hunt.
Right click the network icon, choose: "Open Network and Sharing Center", look to the links on the left, choose: "Change Adapter Settings". Its actually completely obvious and simple, it was an easter egg hunt in XP, it was an easter egg hunt in Vista. Win 7 is extremely simple.
Someone already replied with the search option, which is your alternative. Even better, search inside the control panel.
I wish I had mod points, so I'll just post here to say I completely agree with everything you've said. I actually go so far as to say that MS have hit the ball into Apple's court this time as OSX is actually less intuitive and more difficult to use (I do dumb-user support for both).
And I completely agree with your comment about how they pulled it off, I am utterly dumbfounded myself. The most impressive thing I find about 7 is the rock solid stability, the UI is great (going back to Vista is a stark reminder of how far they came, let alone XP), but the underlying OS is ridiculously solid, and secure. It blows my mind.
If you click in the lower right corner of the box containing the few most used icons, you open up the menu functionality in its fullest. You need fewer clicks to do this than before, since you would have had to go two menus deep.
Cascading menus are a dead/dieing paradigm which should be put behind us.
I do IT support at my university, troubleshooting student problems all day probably fixing more macs than windows machines. The stuff about 'just works' is a complete load of bull, OSX is just as likely, if not more likely to randomly screw up as Windows 7. It is actually *more* difficult to do advanced tasks and the stuff about having an intuitive UI is skin deep at best.
Now I'm not on a mac bashing rant, actually I'm planning on getting a new Macbook pretty soon. I'm just calling it how it is, the GP is mostly right in that the stuff about Apple software being superior is more or less hype. They do make superior cases though, and put together nice selections of hardware inside those really good quality, good looking cases.
I actually think they've done a pretty good job at re-branding themselves lately, this just speaks volumes about the depths to which their brand was damaged in the first place! I can't believe Ballmer still has his job.
Regardless, a wheel with a motor weighs more than a wheel without motor, it is an increase in unsprung mass. This is something we have been trying to reduce for many decades now, for good reasons. Even a slight increase in unsprung mass can have fairly dramatic effects on the handling of a car.
Its a dumb idea, like most of the electric vehicle stuff thats going on right now. This isnt suprising though, its a technology in its infancy.
And I can ride my bike 5km, 3 times a week and notice the weight loss after about two weeks, without changing my diet. Single data points are fun, aren't they?
Oh god thank you for pointing out the economics of fuel! It just doesn't make any economic sense these days to be so up tight about fuel economy, maintenance and total cost of ownership are typically of at least the same order of magnitude as fuel costs for most people, yet they wring their hands about owning a 6 cylinder car, then go out and buy a Peugeot! Then theres the embodied energy costs of making new cars, and the extra resources, don't get me started on batteries!
The thing is, more efficient cars don't even make sense right now, cars aren't efficient! They are not economically efficient, nor are they energy efficient. If you put an electric motor in one its still a damn inefficient mode of transportation, nothing has changed there.
Hub motors are a bad idea, it seems geeks get it into their head reading or watching sci-fi and it suddenly all makes perfect sense that this is what we should be doing! Its not a good idea, because your entire engine become un-sprung mass. That is you dramatically increase the inertia in the wheels themselves, without providing any suspension for them other than the tyres. The result is a rough ride, as each wheel wants to plough through every bump it encounters, instead of lightly hopping over it, turning effort is greatly increased due to the increased rotational inertia, and the cars stability would be sacrificed due to massively increased precession when cornering.
All in all, hub motors or in-wheel motors just don't make sense from an engineering perspective, the insignificant gains from having no drive shafts pale immediately in comparison to the significant drawbacks.
Then your professor can idle on your school's IRC server and do what you paid for over instant/msg.
Thats not even close to enough, for one, they will never do it, being as busy as all professors inevitably are you have to chase them down and catch them in the halls so to speak. Secondly, as much as we'd all love to prove otherwise the web is not a substitute medium for real face to face conversation, so many visual and audible cues are completely missing from the dialogue. Thirdly, the professor is only half the equation, you will also have tutors (TA in america?) and most importantly your peers, all of whom give you lots of extra help through social interaction. It helps on so many levels, perhaps an overlooked but very important level is the fact that working in a social environment like that is confidence boosting: it really helps to know everyone is struggling as much as you are with a hard problem. There is no compromise for bouncing ideas of friends in a face to face meeting, there is no compromise for being completely engulfed in education as a social situation.
Personally I think the burden should lie entirely with the leaker himself, and Wikileaks should not even look at shit (beyond verification of sources) before submitting it. That they claim they vet the material is the only reason we are having this debate. The consequences of a leak should be both the responsibility and crushing burden of the leak, not the messenger.
Ok, I did not know about the sea level rise and will concede the point, the other point you may have refuted but my argument holds: nothing smaller than an atom? Newtonian physics is correct? etc.
The point is it is a logical fallacy to claim a consensus as proof of anything in science. That is all. It is also a bad idea to dismiss skepticism. Science thrives on skepticism!
I don't have any problem with computer simulations, but typically they need to be verified through controlled experiment! In this case, we just can't do that for such a complex system. It means that the potential for rigor in climate science is limited, we should be honest with ourselves about that!
Would you drive a new car or fly in a plane that had been confirmed to work on computer simulations, but never physically tested before??
I am not denying climate change at all, I am exhibiting what I consider healthy skepticism, perhaps I am wrong and I am open to being proven wrong. More importantly though I ask, why aren't we talking about living with a changing climate, instead of embarking on some vast geo-manipulation experiment?
Yes, we should cut emissions of greenhouse gasses, but the question remains, where is your second earth to do controlled experiments on? This question will always remain, it does not mean climate change is wrong, but it does mean as scientists we should be aware of and honest about anything that may cast doubt upon the theories, that is what it means to be a scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
Now you are just clutching at straws, you said things like build quality and design are subjective, I'll give you design, but build quality is not. You can asses the build quality of an item without making measurements dude: does everything line up, what are the gaps like, consistent? small? Any casting dags or machine marks present?
The macbook pro is universally regarded as being built to a high standard compared to most laptops. I don't need to get out the micrometer to justify that claim.
As a Mechanical engineering major, I find that comment completely ludicrous. In the field of engineering, build quality is absolutely a quantifiable metric, and specified right from the design stage to the manufacturing stage. Words like: 'tolerance', 'surface finish', 'material grade', 'rigidity', etc. are all build quality specifications.
Whoops sorry, I mean HP Compaq ;) (Its a thinkpad clone).
You see this is the problem, to many people this shit matters. I give a shit about this stuff, I really do, and I'll pay a few extra $$ to get it. But as I recently discovered, with the MBP I really don't have to, hence I consider it a good deal.
This is why angry /. geeks don't understand Apple, there are people out there who will pay a few extra dollars for external quality, you only have to look at premium consumer brand to recognise this. And for the record I don't like Apple, I don't like OSX, I absolutely hate the Apple superiority cult, but I respect their industrial design.
I've had my hands on plenty of MBP's and I cannot agree with any of your complaints, the touchpad is anything but crap, and how can you completely overlook the build quality of the case? I'll agree with one point: the keyboard quality is pretty crap, but then it is unfortunately of a higher standard than most these days.
Yes they do, but not $1000 worth of video card. As I said my main criteria was overall design and build quality, and this is the problem for me: you want a nice design and high quality build? Your only choice is top of the line, overpriced stuff, and the MBP.
Even the 15" MBP with good graphics is a better deal than either of the laptops I listed.
I was referring more to the build quality. How tight are the tolerances? How closely does the lid match the body? How much flex is there in the chassis? How much play in the hinge? Etc.
I have heard they get hot, so does my HP Thinkpad, it gets extremely hot (and also features a reasonably high build quality). Have you compared the temperature of you MBP to that of a high end Vaio, Dell Studio, or similarly positioned laptop?
You can't deny the MBP is built to a high standard, thats just a dumb thing to say (unless you've never actually picked one up). Yes the components inside are the same, no the internals are not the sum of the unit. The thing is at the higher end, MBP is competitive in pricing, I recently spent a long time searching for my next laptop, and high end build quality was an important factor on my list. The reality I was faced with (as someone who has lived a lifetime of hating all things Apple) is that the MBP is generally a bit cheaper than its competitors if you factor in design and build quality.
Matching component for component is not a good measure, I don't want to pull out a thick plastic piece of junk every time I go to use my laptop. Call me fickle, but I don't care.
The thing is, at the entry level, Macbook Pros are actually extremely good value. Before I go on I'll just note that I'm far from an Apple fanboy and I live in Australia where prices are less than optimal. Now the lowest spec 13" MBP is $1200 ($1400 in AU), for that you get cpu performance equal to that of the previous generation (2010 model) 17" MBP, you get an extremely well crafted enclosure with a nice design in a portable form factor. I have been shopping around for a new laptop and for me the key points were: small, light, attractive, powerful. My options were basically Vaio, Dell XPS studio, HP Envy or Macbook Pro. The MBP was cheaper than all the other options with the nicest design (Australian market here, prices differ quite dramatically). Apple also offer me a student discount, and a free iPod.
I don't like Apple, I really don't (I DO however very much like their industrial design), but I shopped around for a long time and the MBP came up as the best value laptop within my reach. I could have gone down and bought some ugly thick plastic fantastic with better specs for less, but as I said it was crucial to me to have a nice design and a slim package. I'll grant that the MBP cost does not scale well with options, particularly if you opt for alterations when you buy. That said I think I've scored a ridiculously good deal, I'll be installing my own SSD and expect that to reap far more performance gains than bumping up the CPU (at $300 premium no less).
FWIW I was looking at the 14" HP Envy for $2400, the Vaio Z at $3000, or the MBP 13" at $1270 with a free iPod, these are Australian prices.
Right click the network icon, choose: "Open Network and Sharing Center", look to the links on the left, choose: "Change Adapter Settings". Its actually completely obvious and simple, it was an easter egg hunt in XP, it was an easter egg hunt in Vista. Win 7 is extremely simple.
Someone already replied with the search option, which is your alternative. Even better, search inside the control panel.
I wish I had mod points, so I'll just post here to say I completely agree with everything you've said. I actually go so far as to say that MS have hit the ball into Apple's court this time as OSX is actually less intuitive and more difficult to use (I do dumb-user support for both).
And I completely agree with your comment about how they pulled it off, I am utterly dumbfounded myself. The most impressive thing I find about 7 is the rock solid stability, the UI is great (going back to Vista is a stark reminder of how far they came, let alone XP), but the underlying OS is ridiculously solid, and secure. It blows my mind.
If you click in the lower right corner of the box containing the few most used icons, you open up the menu functionality in its fullest. You need fewer clicks to do this than before, since you would have had to go two menus deep.
Cascading menus are a dead/dieing paradigm which should be put behind us.
I do IT support at my university, troubleshooting student problems all day probably fixing more macs than windows machines. The stuff about 'just works' is a complete load of bull, OSX is just as likely, if not more likely to randomly screw up as Windows 7. It is actually *more* difficult to do advanced tasks and the stuff about having an intuitive UI is skin deep at best.
Now I'm not on a mac bashing rant, actually I'm planning on getting a new Macbook pretty soon. I'm just calling it how it is, the GP is mostly right in that the stuff about Apple software being superior is more or less hype. They do make superior cases though, and put together nice selections of hardware inside those really good quality, good looking cases.
I actually think they've done a pretty good job at re-branding themselves lately, this just speaks volumes about the depths to which their brand was damaged in the first place! I can't believe Ballmer still has his job.
Android isn't a device, its an operating system, and open source operating system.
Regardless, a wheel with a motor weighs more than a wheel without motor, it is an increase in unsprung mass. This is something we have been trying to reduce for many decades now, for good reasons. Even a slight increase in unsprung mass can have fairly dramatic effects on the handling of a car.
Its a dumb idea, like most of the electric vehicle stuff thats going on right now. This isnt suprising though, its a technology in its infancy.
You do understand how the first law of thermodynamics works, right?
And I can ride my bike 5km, 3 times a week and notice the weight loss after about two weeks, without changing my diet. Single data points are fun, aren't they?
Oh god thank you for pointing out the economics of fuel! It just doesn't make any economic sense these days to be so up tight about fuel economy, maintenance and total cost of ownership are typically of at least the same order of magnitude as fuel costs for most people, yet they wring their hands about owning a 6 cylinder car, then go out and buy a Peugeot! Then theres the embodied energy costs of making new cars, and the extra resources, don't get me started on batteries!
The thing is, more efficient cars don't even make sense right now, cars aren't efficient! They are not economically efficient, nor are they energy efficient. If you put an electric motor in one its still a damn inefficient mode of transportation, nothing has changed there.
Hub motors are a bad idea, it seems geeks get it into their head reading or watching sci-fi and it suddenly all makes perfect sense that this is what we should be doing! Its not a good idea, because your entire engine become un-sprung mass. That is you dramatically increase the inertia in the wheels themselves, without providing any suspension for them other than the tyres. The result is a rough ride, as each wheel wants to plough through every bump it encounters, instead of lightly hopping over it, turning effort is greatly increased due to the increased rotational inertia, and the cars stability would be sacrificed due to massively increased precession when cornering.
All in all, hub motors or in-wheel motors just don't make sense from an engineering perspective, the insignificant gains from having no drive shafts pale immediately in comparison to the significant drawbacks.
Thats not even close to enough, for one, they will never do it, being as busy as all professors inevitably are you have to chase them down and catch them in the halls so to speak. Secondly, as much as we'd all love to prove otherwise the web is not a substitute medium for real face to face conversation, so many visual and audible cues are completely missing from the dialogue. Thirdly, the professor is only half the equation, you will also have tutors (TA in america?) and most importantly your peers, all of whom give you lots of extra help through social interaction. It helps on so many levels, perhaps an overlooked but very important level is the fact that working in a social environment like that is confidence boosting: it really helps to know everyone is struggling as much as you are with a hard problem. There is no compromise for bouncing ideas of friends in a face to face meeting, there is no compromise for being completely engulfed in education as a social situation.
The web will never be able to replicate this.
Personally I think the burden should lie entirely with the leaker himself, and Wikileaks should not even look at shit (beyond verification of sources) before submitting it. That they claim they vet the material is the only reason we are having this debate. The consequences of a leak should be both the responsibility and crushing burden of the leak, not the messenger.
Ok, I did not know about the sea level rise and will concede the point, the other point you may have refuted but my argument holds: nothing smaller than an atom? Newtonian physics is correct? etc.
The point is it is a logical fallacy to claim a consensus as proof of anything in science. That is all. It is also a bad idea to dismiss skepticism. Science thrives on skepticism!
I don't have any problem with computer simulations, but typically they need to be verified through controlled experiment! In this case, we just can't do that for such a complex system. It means that the potential for rigor in climate science is limited, we should be honest with ourselves about that!
Would you drive a new car or fly in a plane that had been confirmed to work on computer simulations, but never physically tested before??
I am not denying climate change at all, I am exhibiting what I consider healthy skepticism, perhaps I am wrong and I am open to being proven wrong. More importantly though I ask, why aren't we talking about living with a changing climate, instead of embarking on some vast geo-manipulation experiment?
Yes, we should cut emissions of greenhouse gasses, but the question remains, where is your second earth to do controlled experiments on? This question will always remain, it does not mean climate change is wrong, but it does mean as scientists we should be aware of and honest about anything that may cast doubt upon the theories, that is what it means to be a scientist.