'Which?' Tests Phil Schiller's iPad Mini Weight Comparison Claims

[Merlin1999]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

The article was posted by MacRumors (commenting on someone else's already-flawed considerations) and my logical conclusions were drawn on the basis of the whole thing...is this so hard to understand?

I understand perfectly thank you.

I understand that you made light of the article on the basis that the article claimed a 312g iPad was lighter than a 226g pad of paper. If you had read the article you would have seen your claim was inaccurate.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

So let me understand this:

- The pad of paper used in the example weighs 226g;

- the irrelevant iPad Mini weighs 312g;

- therefore, the iPad Mini is "lighter" than a pad of paper?

These guys need some lessons in logic, really...what a pathetic article.

Your original posting above started with "So let me understand this" - well clearly you didn't as you hadn't read the article. Your posting was inaccurate as several others have pointed out. Why you don't understand that I can only put down to a need to back track and pretend you said something else.

Your posting is very clear with it's intention and it is also very clear to anyone who read the article that your posting is wrong. However, you are right with your closing line - some guys really do need lessons in logic!

[Sora]

Originally Posted by JAT

You mean, because it should be mass? Not weight? Otherwise, I don't get it.

It's an american thing when they see metric system - they think in lb's, oz, inches and feet - antiquated measure system imho.

As a Canadian living in the US - after going through college you get used to converting on the fly between systems.

What's even funnier, as soon enter a post-grad/terminal degree program (science/medicine) everything is metric.

[StrudelTurnover]

Originally Posted by TMar

It's news that a device is it's stated weight?

The news is that people compare things to other things and make pretty infographics.
Don't ask the internet to not be the internet.

----------

Originally Posted by Sora

What's even funnier, as soon enter a post-grad/terminal degree program (science/medicine) everything is metric.

But when you get back into a real job...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ial-units.html

[cclloyd]

Is this weight with or without the weight of iCloud?

[wingsabre]

I'd like to add that there are some discrepancies in the weight. The can of coke used is actually a UK size can of coke, which carries 330mL of liquids. In the US there's 350mL of liquids. There's at least a 20 gram difference in weight, and that's not accounting the extra amount of aluminum in the can. Uncertain if the amount used in Europe is less than the US due to recycling standards, etc... So the iPad4 might be lighter than a can of coke or still heavier, and for sure it's heavier than the iPad mini. It goes to show, that the US is the fattest nation it the world because we got there 20 grams at a time.

[prowlmedia]

Originally Posted by tbrinkma

Well, actually... No. According to http://www.papersizes.org/a-paper-sizes.htm

US Letter: 216mm × 279mm (60,2640 square mm)
A4: 210mm x 297mm (62,370 square mm)

Now, on a page-for-page basis, all else being equal, that would still make the A4 page heavier. But, the simple fact is that pads come in varying page counts, with 80, 100, 120, 150, and 200 being some of the more common sizes available.

As they said in their review, they weren't using the thickest pad they could find, and their pad didn't have the (metal) spiral binding pictured against the iPad mini for the comparative weight comment. Given the options there, simply going one common page count up and using a spiral-bound pad would more than cover the weight difference.

Doh - bad copy and pasting skills. I knew it was 210x297 too!

And as I pointed out... it's a stupid argument!

Should have said....
1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 th the weight of the Sun...
or 1.5 x the weight of a hamster.

http://www.bluebulbprojects.com/MeasureOfThings/doShowResults.asp?comp=weight&unit=lbs&amt=0.68&sort=pr&p=1

[mrbrown]

Who is defining the pad of paper? What kind of paper? Too many unanswered questions... very stupid article.

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by prowlmedia

Doh - bad copy and pasting skills. I knew it was 210x297 too!

And as I pointed out... it's a stupid argument!

Should have said....
1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 th the weight of the Sun...
or 1.5 x the weight of a hamster.

http://www.bluebulbprojects.com/MeasureOfThings/doShowResults.asp?comp=weight&unit=lbs&amt=0.68&sort=pr&p=1

It's not actually a stupid argument. Most people don't actually know what N lbs actually *feels* like. Much less XXXg (especially in the US, where we don't normally use metric. ) Giving comparisons to objects that they deal with regularly helps people put that into perspective. While fractions of a sun is an interesting bit of trivia, it doesn't actually tell anybody, in any meaningful way, how much something weighs. Likewise with hamster-masses.

You may be an exception to the rule, but if you've got a scale handy, give it a shot some time. Grab some random items around your house (that *aren't* marked with their weight), and give it your best guess. Then weigh the item. You'll probably be surprised more often than not.

In fact, fairly often, even when you find two objects that have the same (or very nearly the same) weight, your body will perceive their weights differently because of how the weight is balanced, or the size of the object. For example, I've got a printer which *feels* heavier than a 20 lb bag of cat food. It's actually not, since it weighed in at about 15 lbs still inside it's box. It's just denser, and has relatively sharp corners that dig into your hands.

[RobertMartens]

Originally Posted by KeepCalmPeople

Incidentlly, when is Apple going to trademark the words 'amazing' and 'thin', and possibly 'fantastic' and of course 'amazingly thin'?

They already have.

Your quote should be written

Originally Posted by KeepCalmPeople

Incidentlly, when is Apple going to trademark the words 'amazing TM' and 'thin TM', and possibly 'fantastic TM' and of course 'amazingly thin TM'?

[JGRE]

Originally Posted by Virtualball

Its weight is very close to the pad they had on hand, but it was a little heavier. Apple didn't say it was lighter than that specific pad of paper, and since there are heavier pads out there and the iPad Mini's weight is so close to this one, they say that his claim is most likely correct. God, is it so hard to read??

If this crap makes you happy, I am happy for you........ (will not use the down-button for you) for the rest this articel is a total wast of time, can you really call this research??

BTW Any Kindle would be between 14.6 and 20 ounces, so were do the mentioned 168 gram come from?
14.6 ounce = 14.6 x 28,3495231 = 413.9 grams............

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Merlin1999

I understand perfectly thank you.

I understand that you made light of the article on the basis that the article claimed a 312g iPad was lighter than a 226g pad of paper. If you had read the article you would have seen your claim was inaccurate.



Your original posting above started with "So let me understand this" - well clearly you didn't as you hadn't read the article. Your posting was inaccurate as several others have pointed out. Why you don't understand that I can only put down to a need to back track and pretend you said something else.

Your posting is very clear with it's intention and it is also very clear to anyone who read the article that your posting is wrong. However, you are right with your closing line - some guys really do need lessons in logic!

You probably don't even understand what logic is as far as my post is concerned...but nevermind.

[Surreal]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

It's an international standard, as opposed to the obsolete imperial system (itself based on the metric system), nowadays officially used only by the US, Burma and...Liberia.

Ah, not funny in that regard. Metric makes more sense regardless of who uses it.

I still think of grams as representative of mass. We conflate mass with weight because it is easy, but Newtons are the unit of weight in measurement.

In summary, it is funny because we have a unit--in metric--better suited to represent weight, but it just won't take.

[PeterQVenkman]

The butt hurt is strong in this thread.