Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:04:17 -0700, nospam
In article , tony cooper

More stray straws. Your dentist is an end user. What software the
dentist installs on the laptop means jack-**** as far as his laptop
purchase being part of the market share as reported when the
manufacturer sold it.

nope. an x-ray machine that's built around a pc is counted as a pc
running windows in market share numbers, but to the end user (the
dentist) it's an x-ray machine.

Yes, and that is what I said. It's a PC machine for market share
purposes. The end user's application doesn't have anything to do with
the market share aspect.

I see. So you are using artificially inflated numbers which are
irrelevant to PC versus Mac usage (or even buying) to argue on
PC versus Mac usage.

Since you like to demand proof from others, do you have any proof or
evidence to support that claim?

Of course.

Market share --- according to tony --- includes machines that
aren't used as general purpose computers.

I'm not interested in your opinion of what he believes.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

PeterN wrote:
On 8/17/2011 2:29 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/16/2011 11:12 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Others would have admitted being wrong, or reasons that the spot
checks had to have these results (the Mac hardware being better
at these tasks).

Can you point to the last time you admitted being wrong.

Sure. Unfortunately, you were not there.

I thought so.

You're not living with me nor working with me. What do you
expect --- me being wrong and admitting it the last time
having to happen here?

Context contributes a lot to meaning. Obviously the context was here.

Obviously? Nope. Not even close.

If you really meant to write "Can you point to the last time
you admitted being wrong in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
and rec.photo.digital", why didn't you write that?

(And BTW, I can.)

BTW, can you point me to the last time tony cooper (and you too)
admitted being wrong 'here'?

-Wolfgang

On 8/30/2011 10:41 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/17/2011 2:29 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/16/2011 11:12 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Others would have admitted being wrong, or reasons that the spot
checks had to have these results (the Mac hardware being better
at these tasks).

Can you point to the last time you admitted being wrong.

Sure. Unfortunately, you were not there.

I thought so.

You're not living with me nor working with me. What do you
expect --- me being wrong and admitting it the last time
having to happen here?

Context contributes a lot to meaning. Obviously the context was here.

Obviously? Nope. Not even close.

If you really meant to write "Can you point to the last time
you admitted being wrong in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
and rec.photo.digital", why didn't you write that?

(And BTW, I can.)

BTW, can you point me to the last time tony cooper (and you too)
admitted being wrong 'here'?


Speaking for myself I apologized you. Check your archives.

Now tell us when you admitted to a mistake, here.


--
Peter

On 9/1/2011 11:15 AM, RichA wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:49 am, wrote:
On 8/30/2011 10:41 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:









wrote:
On 8/17/2011 2:29 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/16/2011 11:12 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Others would have admitted being wrong, or reasons that the spot
checks had to have these results (the Mac hardware being better
at these tasks).

Can you point to the last time you admitted being wrong.

Sure. Unfortunately, you were not there.

I thought so.

You're not living with me nor working with me. What do you
expect --- me being wrong and admitting it the last time
having to happen here?

Context contributes a lot to meaning. Obviously the context was here.

Obviously? Nope. Not even close.

If you really meant to write "Can you point to the last time
you admitted being wrong in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
and rec.photo.digital", why didn't you write that?

(And BTW, I can.)

BTW, can you point me to the last time tony cooper (and you too)
admitted being wrong 'here'?

Speaking for myself I apologized you. Check your archives.

Now tell us when you admitted to a mistake, here.

--
Peter

It's such fun watching the pack of FISHWIVES nattering.

And is that why you post such asinine things?

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 8/30/2011 10:41 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

If you really meant to write "Can you point to the last time
you admitted being wrong in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
and rec.photo.digital", why didn't you write that?

(And BTW, I can.)

BTW, can you point me to the last time tony cooper (and you too)
admitted being wrong 'here'?

Speaking for myself I apologized you.

And I am sure you didn't forget the 'to' in "I apologized *TO*
you" by accident.


Check your archives.

The archives say 'nope'. Message ID?


Now tell us when you admitted to a mistake, here.

Check your archives. (See, I can play that game as well).


But for the record, see e.g.


-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 8/17/2011 11:23 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:57 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Above laptop inbuild in the car is counted as Windows laptop
in market share numbers?

Please define what you mean by laptop. Can you take this laptop out of
the car and take it on a plane.

You can even take the car on a plane. You can also just take
the right front wheel of the car into a plane. So what gives?

I see you have no answer. Thought so.


If so, what process is involved in the
removal?

Is that relevant? A car radio can be removed in mere seconds ...
a wheel too, given the right tools.

Given the right tools would you then be capable of rational and
practical thinking????????????????

Either you are a bad copy of Megahal or you quaffed too much
of Whiskey-Dave's stuff. Anyway, you don't make any sense,
and you know it.


Hope I didn't use up my quota of question marks for the day.

You need a new keyboard, your '?' key has terrible contact
chatter.

-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 8/17/2011 11:26 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/14/2011 6:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
tony wrote:

Oh, I think I can say that with about 99% probability of accuracy.

You are saying lots of wrong things lately. For example, nospam's
pretty convincing to me. "anyone" is thus wrong by default, so
the accuracy is ZERO. So your 99% happens to not capure reality.

Did you understand that market position is considered on a periodic basis.

I'll gift you with an '?'.

If market position is on a periodic basis how is period of sale
accounted for by casual observation?

If tony can use population numbers (see other posts) ---
and ones sampled with a easily strong bias --- to give market
share numbers, then so can I. A higher number of Mac laptops
in population compared to their sales per time-unit rate
would show that they are used longer, hence cheaper to buy as
price-per-time-unit-of-ownership than the price at the time of
purchase would indicate in a naive comparison.

Anyway, we're arguing over a factor 5, and I'd guess even Mac
laptops are laid to rest after twice the age of a Windows laptop.
Still a 2.5x difference, and a good idea to buy a Mac laptop even
if it would be quite a bit more expensive on identical features
than Windows laptops.

You didn't answer

You didn't bother to read the answer. You didn't even bother
to end your sentence with a '.'. You're just trying to be a
nuisance.

-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 8/17/2011 2:04 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/16/2011 1:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:58 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

[big snip where you didn't say anything]

I am still waiting for the source that supports your comment regarding
supply of inaccurate data.

Please reread what I wrote. Or look at studies e.g. regarding
Linux sponsored by Microsoft. Tuning the Windows, not installing
patches for the Linux, not enabling new techniques for speed,
using e.g. a peak measurement when average throughput or time
to completion is actually the relevant number, etc ... accurate?
Sure, they probably didn't need to fake the numbers. Reflecting
reality? Hmmm ...

You still haven't supplied a clear response.

If you don't even know the difference bettween what I wrote
and what you put in my mouth, I cannot help you anymore.

Any statistical sampling analysis is by definition not exact as it
contains a desired degree of uncertainty.

Wrong. There is at least one case where the sampling is
exact: namely when you sample every case.

That is not a statistical random sample. It's not even a sample. Its a
complete count of the set.

You probably should produce now the mathematical or statistical
definition of sample that doesn't include the whole set. And then
you might find that that 'not-sample' fulfills all the necessary
prerequisites for a statistically random sample.


Therefore I have been careful
to use the expression accurate, as opposed to exact. However, I do know
that nospam's method contains an unacceptably high degree of inaccuracy.
It certainly is not random.

Is randomness a absolutely necessary prerequisite? Explain why
not.

You want me to explain your position?
Read any text on statistical sampling. Preferably statistics 101.

One would think you could explain why randomness was an
absolutely necessary prerequisite, if that was true. Of
course it's NOT a prerequisite.
Example:
Exit polls or extrapolation based on the districts to finish
first on election days.
- It's well known that those who vote via letter have a
non-average election behaviour (so exit polls are known
not to be random nor to be representative --- they are
also not representative since voters of certain parties
are less likely to answer questions).
- It's well known that areas and districts are voting well
off the average voter, some places being strongholds of
a party and some of another (so those election districts
that finish counting early and are used for extrapolation
are not random and really not representative

Yet they manage very well to give accurate exrapolations ...

Is a couple thoousand samples too small to distinguish between
~5-10% and ~50%? Explain why not.

Maybe, maybe not. What is your point?

Just answer the damn question, btw, the answer is "not too
small". Just read any text on statistical sampling 101.


Is Apple overrepresented by a factor or 5 or more on planes
(and airports and starbucks and convention centers and so on)?
Explain why.

See above.

There's only handwaving from you --- which is proven wrong.

All There are many point previously mentioned by Tony Cooper
that could skew the results.

.... usually towards Windows, yes. Gaming, for example. Windows
*is* the *premiere* gaming platform (outside specialized hardware
platforms like XBox), everything else is not even in the same
league. That explains why people gaming on the airplane use
Mac laptops.

By definition a count of products in use at a defined location, at a
defined time, does not equal production & sales in a defined period,
which is the generally accepted definition of market share.

Handwaving. Lots of. And you're wrong, to boot: there's an
equally generally accepted definition for market share that is
in monetary units.

Also you don't seem to understand that we're not trying to
measure market share, we're falsifying a given number as
market share. All the reasons why Mac laptops could be seen
more often don't explain the discrepancy between what's
expected and what's observed. Therefore, the market share
can not mean what we think it means.

Grasp that?

If you want
to redefine it, show proof of the validity of your unique definition.

You're really not understanding what I am saying, right?
You're completely caught up in your own web ...

-Wolfgang

tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:04:41 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Any statistical sampling analysis is by definition not exact as it
contains a desired degree of uncertainty.

Actually, statistical sampling projections have a desired degree of
certainty, not uncertainty. The reciprocal between the degree of
certainty and total accuracy is the uncertainty factor.

Wrong. There is at least one case where the sampling is
exact: namely when you sample every case.

You'd think that even Wolfie would understand what "sample" means
statistically. "Sample every case" is an oxymoron.

So prove me wrong by quoting a relevant statistics text.

You would also think that even Wolfie would understand that not all
responders provide accurate and true responses, so even a 100% survey
does not result in complete certainty.

Where in the world does tony get the abstruse ideas then that
- all laptop manufacturers and sellers provide accurate and
true data
- there are only cases that involve asking responders, and no
cases where e.g. counting people or cars etc. can be used
for statistics?

What with extrapolation election results on partially (e.g. counted
in some districts, but not yet in others) counted data? Who's the
responder there?

-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 8/17/2011 2:26 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/16/2011 1:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:58 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/9/2011 6:09 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:


Product design is a part of every relevant part of a company,
usually including decision makers way above marketing. Marketing
gives input, but so do others, because often marketing doesn't
grasp the lack of unobtainium.

Meaning?

*sigh* Obviously you never had the very common experience of
sales wanting things that are physically impossible. Or
simply not possible within the timeframe given.

I see you silent.
Maybe you googled?


You claimed predictive analysis needed accurate numbers. You have
neither proven that they are accurate (Apple's sales numbers aren't
exactly diapers and beer) nor that they need to be very exact.

correct accurate to margin of error, not inaccurate.

I see. So, say, 5% ±95% would be would be accurate to the
margin of error and very worthless.

I see you silent.
Perhaps you understood that your "accurate number" wasn't very
exact, argument wise.


No predictive analysis can be more accurate than the numbers upon which
it is based.

I see. That's why averaging samples could never work, right?

I see you silent.
And I had so hoped to tell you binning works, for example.
But you found out yourself that you wrote an indefensible claim.


that's why it is also referred to a probability analysis.

Really! Because it cannot be more accurate than ... and not
because it tries to estimate probabilities or sumtin' like
that.

I see you silent.
Hmmm. Could it be I hit the nail on the head?


If I accurately observe that a fair coin has landed on tails, 200,000
time in a row, the probability of it landing on tails is exactly .5.
Prior events have nothing to do with the probability of the next event.

And that's why a probability analysis needs accurate data of
past events!

Again, I see you silent. Probably because you you found your
straw argument is silly and indefensible.


Actually, there are a lot of things where the probability of
the next event is determined by past events. For one trivial
example, the probability of pregnancy also depends on the past
random event of you being born male or female.

Going from a fair coin to gender is a straw argument. Gender analysis
fair coin analysis.

It's so very typical of you to only look on the very surface.
(Probably because it's the only way out for you now.)


For example, taking umbrage at the very surface of a counter
example ... which uses gender, as it's quite intuitive to most
people that males don't often get pregnant.


I could as well have used Russian roulette (the chance of being
killed depending on the random events of the shot being fired
or not fired n times before you're on the spot). Or drawing
items out of a receptable without putting them back. Or drawing
multiple cards (without putting them back) from a stack of cards.

Here's something for you to read on that stuff:
http://www.intmath.com/counting-prob...robability.php
http://www.intmath.com/counting-prob...ent-events.php

"Prior events have nothing to do with the probability of the
next event" the way you stated it as universally valid is UTTER
BULL****, because that's only true for independent events.
Many events, probably most events, are anything but independent.

-Wolfgang