Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Magnesium iPod? PowerMacs at WWDC?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow that is an interesting story. I rate its entertainment at 5 out of 5 stars.Macrumors said:
In 1993, NeXTWORLD's Simson Garfinkel documented his (extensive) efforts at setting a NeXT Cube on fire. (image)
*****/*****iMacZealot said:
Independent studies have found Wikipedia to be about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, with Wikipedia having longer articles that Britannica.
iNeedtoSwitch said:Heck why stop there? Why not make it water proof, fire proof, hurricane and tornado proof, and even lightning proof
Why not make it idiot proof? Like if you do suspicious things with your computer, it would say "User error. Replace user and press key when ready."
but the really interesting part...
"NeXTWORLD's Simson Garfinkel documented his (extensive) efforts at setting a NeXT Cube on fire. (image)"
Simson Garfinkel? Is that a real name? Somebody's parents had a cruel sense of humor or liked Scarboro Fair just a bit too much...
"NeXTWORLD's Simson Garfinkel documented his (extensive) efforts at setting a NeXT Cube on fire. (image)"
Simson Garfinkel? Is that a real name? Somebody's parents had a cruel sense of humor or liked Scarboro Fair just a bit too much...
Evangelion said:
Yes, and the length of an article is a good indication of the accuracy of that article, isn't it?
QCassidy352 said:
No, they make laptops that do that.
Glen Quagmire said:
let me rephrase that: Articles in Wikipedia were about as accurate as articles in Britannica. AND the articles in Wikipedia were significantly longer than the ones in Britannica. In other words: Britannica and Wikipedia were about as accurate, but Wikipedia offered significantly more content.
Clear now?
I just wonder if that also measn the Macbook Pro will switch to Magnesium. I mean, Apple liked to make their things look similar to each other in terms of finish. If iPods and MacPros will be Magnesium (although I think Magnesium is a bit too tough and expensive for a computer standing on a floor or desk), it's very probable the MBP will follow with a new look and magnesium finish.
I know some guy whose 12" powerbook has fallen from not too high and its modem port hit a corner. Now the whole thing is a bit warped and there's a metal dent making it impossible to use the modem. That thing wouldn't have happened with a more elastic (in the phisical way) material. I'm just happy my Macbook is plastic. It looks a bit like from the 80s but I like that.
I know some guy whose 12" powerbook has fallen from not too high and its modem port hit a corner. Now the whole thing is a bit warped and there's a metal dent making it impossible to use the modem. That thing wouldn't have happened with a more elastic (in the phisical way) material. I'm just happy my Macbook is plastic. It looks a bit like from the 80s but I like that.
Evangelion said:
Oh, most definitely.
Wikipedia: nice idea, shame about the execution. Its greatest strength (i.e. that anyone can alter its content) is also its greatest weakness. I know which of the I would choose, and it would *not* be Wikipedia.
wow people are so worried about magnisium being used. First off you dont use the stuff in it pure form. In the pure form it is way to reactive to be used. Make an Alloy out of it an boom you got something really good.
Heck most stuff made out of alluim is not made made out pure Al. Most of the time it is an Al. The alloy metal is normally li (the lightest of all metals but highly reactive)
It be some alloy metal with it.
Heck steel is an alloy. up to about 4% carbon by weight. Most metals we used to day are some alloy.
Heck most stuff made out of alluim is not made made out pure Al. Most of the time it is an Al. The alloy metal is normally li (the lightest of all metals but highly reactive)
It be some alloy metal with it.
Heck steel is an alloy. up to about 4% carbon by weight. Most metals we used to day are some alloy.
Evangelion said:
But the damn site is all voluntary, no real authority. People could change something on less looked at articles and nobody'd no the difference! My sister's professors do not allow their students to you Wikipedia! Just because something's longer doesn't mean it's bettter! If you've ever used Encyclopaedia Brittanica or the World Book, the authors are pros on the subject, not just some bum that's obcessed with Google!
iMacZealot said:
So? Fact remains, that according to independent studies, Wikipedia is very accurate. Do you think that you can only do a good job when you are paid to do so?
nobody would know the difference? Hardly
That's their choice. It still does not change he fact that according to independent studies, Wikipedia is very accurate. At this point I gues that you will just close your eyes, cover your ears and shout "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". But that does not change the FACTS.
Am I speaking latin here or something? Let me repeat what I have said: According to independent studies, Wikipedia is very accurate. Meaning: There are very few errors in the entries in Wikipedia. IN ADDITION TO THAT, Wikipedia has longer articles (on average) than Britannica (for example) does. I have NOT said "Wikipedia is better because the articles are longer". I have said that "Articles in Wikipedia are very accurate AND the are on average longer than ones in Britannica". Longer articles means that they have more information than shorter articles do.
Suppose that you were looking for information about string theory (for example). Would you prefer an article on the subject that consist of one paragraph, or one that consists of twelwe paragraphs?
What makes you think that authors in Wikipedia are "bums"? What makes you think that they are not experts in their field?
You obviously have an axe to grind when it comes to Wikipedia. I haven't seen any reason why you should call the wikipediaistas "bums". So what is your problem here?
Glen Quagmire said:
Go right ahead. That does not change the findings of the independent study. But if you decide not to use Wikiedia. you most certainly have that right.
Evangelion said:
Sheesh, that independent study is all you have to back up yourself. On the A380 article, the height was changed from 78ft 6in to 78ft 3in, and stayed up there pretty long! And there are plenty more. I read one about "Larry King's farting habit" that stayed up for a month. Yes, many articles in Wikipedia are accurate, but minor things can be changed without notice. And when I said the thing about the bums, I meant that I'd rather read what a person with a PhD in Botany has to say about the Brasilian Verbena over a Wikipaedist that just has googled the subject a few times. Sure, it's okay for just a brief overview on something, but it should never should be used for professional or academic purposes, as even said by the founder of Wikipaedia.
So, what do you have do say? Maybe quote that study few times again for me, please.
iMacZealot said:
So, you would like me to ignore FACTS, is that it? I should just pretend that the study does not exists?
You are claiming that Wikipedia is not accurate. I'm saying that according to independent study carried out by the Nature-magazine, Wikipedia IS accurate. You are disputing that claim. In that case I think that you need to go talk to Nature and tell them that they have no idea what they are talking about.
Oh the humanity! So which of those figures is the right one? If it's the latter, are you then complaining becuase they find errors and fix them?
Thank $DEITY Britannica has no errors in it! No sirree! Nevermind the fact that it DOES contain errors as well (in Natures comparison, they found 8 "major errors". 4 of those errors were in Wikipedia, 4 were in Britannica.
Exception to the rule. That is what Nature said about those kind of entires in Wikipedia after their study. You do know that there are over a million articles in Wikipedia, and you are whining becuase you found one that has some weird comments in it? And if it stayed up for a month, why didn't you fix it? I have actually fixed two articles in Wikipedia (I don't remember the other, but the second was some grammar-fixes in English article about Finnish mythology.). Took me about 5 minutes in total.
And maybe he does have a farting-habit
?Well, there is the history-function that provides information to what was change, when was it changed and who changed it. So it's not like the changes simply appear without anyone noticing. Each article has a detailed history that shows EXACTLY what has been changed.
What makes you think that the article in Wikipedia was not written by someone who has a PhD in Botany? "oh no, they are just bums who use Google!". Generalize much?
Oh, I dunno. Maybe YOU could just say "but anyone can edit it! They are just bums!" few more times? Nevermind that it's utterly pointless and dumb, but that's the only thing you seem to have to say.
"but.... anyone can edit it!"
iMacZealot said:
Can I point out, because it seems to be constantly missed, that the guy did not say "An independent study said that Wikipedia articles are longer and therefore more accurate." He said that an independent study said Wikipedia articles are generally as accurate as the EB.
And, seperately, Wikipedia articles tend to be longer (that is, more in depth and informative) than EB articles.
I can recall this coming up and the Encyclopedia Britannica actually being actively dishonest and misleading in their attempts to debunk the study.
Wikipedia's accuracy is not a question of article length and NOBODY is suggesting it is. Wikipedia is generally an extremely accurate body of work. Given this, and given the fact it covers a more diverse range of subjects, in more depth, than the EB, it is a more useful work.
Oh, and to answer the criticism that you think this doesn't make sense: Wikipedia is:
- Continually peer reviewed.
- Comprised of contributions usually written by experts in their field
- Constantly monitored by people looking for incorrect modifications to pages they've added.
Additionally, if you're just looking for a starting place, Wikipedians are usually very good at citing sources.
By comparison, the EB has some degree of editorial control, but can't very well get experts together for every little subject that comes up. It's not surprising the EB contains mistakes.
You can't rely on either as a definitive source, but objectively Wikipedia is a more useful starting point than the EB, and it's certainly fair to point someone its direction if you believe the article to be largely accurate and if it contains links that'll allow a reader to research further.
peharri said:
There's also the discussion, in which you can participate or just read, which can be useful particularly when reading disputed articles that may carry a bias (like politics)... Also, for certain articles, only registered users are allowed to edit content to prevent vandalism. Overall, I think they succeeded in building an almost "self-supporting" system. And no, I'm not afraid of some nasty orwellian scenario, as my sig. could lead you to think
peharri said:
Although this approach may lead to inaccurate external material creeping into an otherwise reliable source, I've found that on some potentially obscure subjects (namely the conspiracy theories around the 9/11/73 military coup in Chile and the 9/11/01 attacks, about which I had to make an essay and design a 4-page newspaper-like brochure), the various angles and theories are explored, explained, and linked to. It's up to you to believe the sources, since they are usually so diverse in nature and opinion, just as, say, in "real life" (a.k.a. god-awful-google, which really sucks for serious on-line research), only they are partially digested for you to use them as a starting point, like peharri pointed out.
Timepass said:
Apple knows what they are doing.
I use to have a motorcycle that had a magnesium alloy block. Believe me that block got a heck of lot hotter than any ipod or powerbook, it took an infinite more amout of abuse, and it was as light as a feather.
Bring on the Merom, Magnesium, Macbook or Triple M book.
I can't believe the excitment here over Apple actually using a high quality material. But it IS Apple we are talking about here
Big whoop, I have a radio from the late 1970s all made of magnesium, a laptop all made of magnesium and a few audio players/recorders some dating from the mid 90s all made of magnesium. If you're looking for a way to flame me for my comment and I know some will because of my critisisims over the angel called Apple, here is a clue, they are all Made in Japan.
Big whoop, I have a radio from the late 1970s all made of magnesium, a laptop all made of magnesium and a few audio players/recorders some dating from the mid 90s all made of magnesium. If you're looking for a way to flame me for my comment and I know some will because of my critisisims over the angel called Apple, here is a clue, they are all Made in Japan.
BornAgainMac said:Oh, you forgot scratch proof.
Don't ask for miracles.
finalcoolman said:I can't believe the excitment here over Apple actually using a high quality material. But it IS Apple we are talking about here
Big whoop, I have a radio from the late 1970s all made of magnesium, a laptop all made of magnesium and a few audio players/recorders some dating from the mid 90s all made of magnesium. If you're looking for a way to flame me for my comment and I know some will because of my critisisims over the angel called Apple, here is a clue, they are all Made in Japan.
Yeah well I had a laptop made out cast iron from Guatemala, so there.