Of course you are correct. I am referring to relative changes being expressed in a meaningful way. Telling me that my laptop will be 18% cooler, using Farenheit, let's me know that it will be noticeably cooler. If you tell me that it will be 1% cooler, using Kelvin, I will think "What's the point?" I didn't major in a Physical Science, so even telling me that the temperature will change from 299.15 Kelvin to 288.15 Kelvin really doesn't convey the intended message. I have to go searching the net, find a Physics book, or ask a Geek to find out what the heck you are trying to say. The sad fact is I would even have that problem with Celsius. I'm not stupid, I just don't usually need that knowledge to function. Call it ignorance, but I just don't have time to retrain my brain to think that way.
So if this was a professional research paper, being pitched to engineers or other professionals, I agree, it needs more precise math. Since it is actually being marketed to the average user (even if, in the case, they are geeky enough to read SlashDot), those numbers are fine. The message is "Try this, it will make your laptop cooler and last longer." Message received.
And of course, I don't have an answer to the 0 degrees Celsius question. Twice as cold is relative. What's cold to you and what's cold to me is different. If you are saying that day 2 will be half the temperature of day 1, I understand the question a little better. However, it is still relative. If we are talking about temeratures on Earth, we have a different standard than if we are talking about temperatures on the moon, the sun, Jupiter, or deep space. Since Earth temperatures never come close to approaching absolute zero, we shouldn't use that as a reference for judging half or twice as much as another figure. Right?
Anyway, you are right about the numbers, the are arbitrary from a certain perspective (as are most things). However, in my case, at least, the convey, what I assume to be, the intended message.
Their number is not 'totally' meaningless. It's just not totally meaningful. I'm an American and Fehrenheit makes sense to me. If the article was addressed to a group of Physics students, I'm sure that they would have used more absolute, concrete numbers. Now, Kelvin would not be very useful for the average folk because of it's low 0 point. Temperature changes that humans can experience and tolerate would barely register as a change on that scale. That's just my opinion.
As far as the term 'undervolting', it is a word. People coin words and phrases all the time. Underclocking is not in Webster's Dictionary, but is has meaning. The same thing with Undervolting. It has meaning and is distinct from the meaning of any other word in the language. It's a word, they made it up. (or someone did).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you are correct. I am referring to relative changes being expressed in a meaningful way. Telling me that my laptop will be 18% cooler, using Farenheit, let's me know that it will be noticeably cooler. If you tell me that it will be 1% cooler, using Kelvin, I will think "What's the point?" I didn't major in a Physical Science, so even telling me that the temperature will change from 299.15 Kelvin to 288.15 Kelvin really doesn't convey the intended message. I have to go searching the net, find a Physics book, or ask a Geek to find out what the heck you are trying to say. The sad fact is I would even have that problem with Celsius. I'm not stupid, I just don't usually need that knowledge to function. Call it ignorance, but I just don't have time to retrain my brain to think that way. So if this was a professional research paper, being pitched to engineers or other professionals, I agree, it needs more precise math. Since it is actually being marketed to the average user (even if, in the case, they are geeky enough to read SlashDot), those numbers are fine. The message is "Try this, it will make your laptop cooler and last longer." Message received. And of course, I don't have an answer to the 0 degrees Celsius question. Twice as cold is relative. What's cold to you and what's cold to me is different. If you are saying that day 2 will be half the temperature of day 1, I understand the question a little better. However, it is still relative. If we are talking about temeratures on Earth, we have a different standard than if we are talking about temperatures on the moon, the sun, Jupiter, or deep space. Since Earth temperatures never come close to approaching absolute zero, we shouldn't use that as a reference for judging half or twice as much as another figure. Right? Anyway, you are right about the numbers, the are arbitrary from a certain perspective (as are most things). However, in my case, at least, the convey, what I assume to be, the intended message.
Their number is not 'totally' meaningless. It's just not totally meaningful. I'm an American and Fehrenheit makes sense to me. If the article was addressed to a group of Physics students, I'm sure that they would have used more absolute, concrete numbers. Now, Kelvin would not be very useful for the average folk because of it's low 0 point. Temperature changes that humans can experience and tolerate would barely register as a change on that scale. That's just my opinion. As far as the term 'undervolting', it is a word. People coin words and phrases all the time. Underclocking is not in Webster's Dictionary, but is has meaning. The same thing with Undervolting. It has meaning and is distinct from the meaning of any other word in the language. It's a word, they made it up. (or someone did).