What nice feet you have!

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The gram is a unit of mass, as is the pound. The gram can also be a unit of weight, as can the pound. On Earth, for all intents and purposes mass and weight are equivalent.

LOL!

No they are not the same. Sure, mass and weight are similar but there is one big difference. Mass is a measurement of how much of something there is, weight is the measurement of how much gravity effects an object.

That's just like velocity and speed, they're very similar yet they are two distinctly different things.

But I guess my input wasn't necessary since CarlisleUnited already explained it.

No, it'd be like using mph or m/s (both units of velocity and speed)

No they're not... Velocity includes direction.

 

[EricNau]

Just a slight correction right there, if a car did one lap of a race track and you where measuring its velocity it would be 0 so it's not the same. Velocity needs a direction and in this case that direction would have to be in a straight line.

That would depend on the time duration chosen to derive the value. For average velocity, yes, you would be correct. However, I never claimed that the values for velocity and speed would always be identical, merely that they share the same units.

The pound is a measure of mass. Weight is entirely dependent on mass but incorporates the effect of gravity, mass doesn't. While you may say that on earth there is no real need to distinguish between mass and weight, to state that a measure of mass (a gram) can also be a measure of weight (Newton) is very very wrong

That's not what I said. I stated that the units of grams and pounds are interchangeable for both mass and weight on earth.

LOL!

No they are not the same. Sure, mass and weight are similar but there is one big difference. Mass is a measurement of how much of something there is, weight is the measurement of how much gravity effects an object.

That's just like velocity and speed, they're very similar yet they are two distinctly different things.

But I guess my input wasn't necessary since CarlisleUnited already explained it.

I never said they were the same; I said they were equivalent (i.e. equal in value).

Yes, mass and weight are two distinct entities, a fact of which I am fully aware. However, both can be measured using either grams or pounds.

No they're not... Velocity includes direction.

Again, the two may be different, but the units by which they are measured are the same (in SI, m/s). You can see that here: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

You said:

The gram is a unit of mass, as is the pound. The gram can also be a unit of weight, as can the pound. On Earth, for all intents and purposes mass and weight are equivalent.

The simple fact is that pounds are not a unit of mass, and grams are not a unit of weight. You did not say that they were interchangeable, you said what I quote. You're wrong, eat your words.

And mass is constant, at certain points of the earth gravity is a little different, thus your weight will be different in some places, but your mass remains the same.

 

[Mhmm]

Weight is a force, and thus measured in Newtons.

Mass can be measured in either grams or pounds.

However, people colloquially refer to mass as weight, since gravity on Earth is almost the same all around.



Now back on topic, I like the feet on the MacBook as well.

 

[EricNau]

You said:

The simple fact is that pounds are not a unit of mass, and grams are not a unit of weight. You did not say that they were interchangeable, you said what I quote. You're wrong, eat your words.

Pounds not a unit of mass? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)

And while I knowingly admit that grams are not recognized by the scientific community as a unit of weight (nor is the pound, I might add), grams are still used in reference to weight in every-day life. You need not look further than your bathroom scale for proof.

And mass is constant, at certain points of the earth gravity is a little different, thus your weight will be different in some places, but your mass remains the same.

Fair enough. But I don't think that's going to make a difference for the mass/weight reported on Wheaties Boxes.

 

[Abstract]

You said:

The simple fact is that pounds are not a unit of mass, and grams are not a unit of weight. You did not say that they were interchangeable, you said what I quote. You're wrong, eat your words.

You're right, but actually, so is what EricNau said.

For all intents and purposes, mass and weight are treated as the same thing. They're not, but really, the only difference is a value that's nearly constant around the Earth, so weight and mass is just treated the same colloquially.

 

[Carl Abudephane]

.

 

[o2xygen]

I love the height, but its sooo slippery on my desk at work when ever i goto type on my macbook it pushes away a bit

 

[jgbhardy]

Back on topic!

Ironically, the four rubber feet are something that kinda bug me a little about the current MacBook & MacBook Pro, in that I would prefer it if they raised the computer a touch more off the surface.
I probably wouldn't have ever noticed this other than for briefly owning a MacBook Air, and loving it's oversized feet. They look pretty cool but more importantly raise it quite a bit on whatever surface one is using it.

I'm possibly going to be getting a 17" soon and having checked it out numerous times in-store, feel that even though both the 'Book & 'Pro would benefit from the Airs larger feet, that the 17' would most of all, it being so large.
It's feet seem hardly to give it any gap at all, and even just sitting idle in the Apple store, the 17"er's often get pretty warm underneath.

Maybe having those larger Air 'feet' would look funny on the thicker 'Books & 'Pro's, I don't know. Must be some reason why they don't have them though.

Maybe you would like these, I have them they work great keeps its elevated and a nice typing angle too. http://www.bluelounge.com/coolfeet.php

 

[natebookpro]

Back on topic!

Ironically, the four rubber feet are something that kinda bug me a little about the current MacBook & MacBook Pro, in that I would prefer it if they raised the computer a touch more off the surface.
I probably wouldn't have ever noticed this other than for briefly owning a MacBook Air, and loving it's oversized feet. They look pretty cool but more importantly raise it quite a bit on whatever surface one is using it.

I'm possibly going to be getting a 17" soon and having checked it out numerous times in-store, feel that even though both the 'Book & 'Pro would benefit from the Airs larger feet, that the 17' would most of all, it being so large.
It's feet seem hardly to give it any gap at all, and even just sitting idle in the Apple store, the 17"er's often get pretty warm underneath.

Maybe having those larger Air 'feet' would look funny on the thicker 'Books & 'Pro's, I don't know. Must be some reason why they don't have them though.

I wish they were just a hair taller as well, but compared to the originals I think they are a lot better.