Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

PeterN wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/2/2011 3:24 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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:

I see you silent.
Maybe you googled?

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

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.

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

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.)
[snip]

You are deliberately ignoring my comments, or evading what I said.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Ignoring my comments, *playing* a complete idiot in not
grasping dependent events (and implying everything is an
independent event) ... and then having the chuzpe of telling
*me*, *I* am ignoring your comments. Pfui!

"Prior events have nothing to do with the probability of the
next event." is, as I wrote, complete BULL**** outside specific
circumstances.

Market analysis *isn't* one of these circumstances, as you well
understand, for else noone would need accurate numbers of past
(i.e. *prior*) events --- which you claimed were needed.

Again you misquote me.

Really?

The clear meaning IN CONTEXT, of my comment which anyone discussing in
good faith should understand.

Accurate numbers are necessary when creating an adequate sample.

In the context of predicting marketing trends, you said:
| No predictive analysis can be more accurate than the numbers upon which
| it is based. that's why it is also referred to a probability analysis.
| 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.

Let's rephrase that:
1. predictive analysis can't be more accurate than it's
input.
2. predictive analysis is also called probability analysis:e
3. Coin flipping doesn't yield to predictive analysis (can't
use the input, can only use mathematical models that have
no input).
4. predictive analysis doesn't work (there never is any correlation
between prior events (input, s. 1.) and the future.

You're right, I should not have latched on the bull you
spouted in 4. I should have pointed out that you probably
mixed up lots of things:

- What has coin flipping to do with predicting maketing
trends?

- What ever happened to cleaning up numbers: averaging,
removal of outliers, etc?

- What ever happened to common sense? Having a fair coin land
200,000 times in a row on tails is 1:2^200,000 or ~1:10^60,206
... that's pretty clear proof it's not a fair coin.

- What is the need for accurate input if "[p]rior events have
have nothing to do with the probability of the next event"?

and so on.



Look at a Venn diagram an you will see that a sample is a subset of the
population. If you really believe that casual observations can be taken
as a statistically valid subset of the entire population, and are more
valid than published actual data, then I hope you have students who
question this closely. If your employer believes it, that's its problem

If you actually believe your "fair" coin would show 200,000 times
tail in a row (unless you have a enormous, stupendous, humungous,
colossal number of flips), then I really hope you have students
who laugh you out of class.

BTW:
If you bother to check, you will see that I brought the fair coin
example into this thread.

If only to show that predictive analysis is useless ...

-Wolfgang

On 9/8/2011 5:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/5/2011 4:26 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/2/2011 5:28 PM, tony cooper wrote:

There's no guarantee of accuracy, but it is to each submitter's best
interest to submit accurate figures. They are submitting the figures
in order to know what other manufacturers are doing. If they abuse
the system, the other manufacturers will abuse the system and no one
gains.

Because Apple is a publicly traded security, the knowing release of
inaccurate information could be a violation of Securities laws.

Could. In other words, you don't even know if it would. Much less
if other submitters provide true data, even if Apple does.

While your English is reasonably good, please don't take my precise
words to mean other than I have stated. Maybe you know all the facts. I
don't.

I read your words to mean "If I was Apple, I'd research if I'd
violate the Securities laws first, because I don't know if they
might be broken by submitting incorrect figures. IANAL."

Right?


If that's how you read my words, you read them wrong.

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 9/5/2011 4:58 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/3/2011 6:26 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

You totally miss that in today's economy with JIT availability,
production is a function of actual sales, which is a determinant of
market share.

That would explain why it takes *months* for new e.g. Canon cameras
to appear here, that would explain why e.g. Canon produces every
single lens just in time.

Did you know that Canon is spending more time retooling the
production lines than producing lenses and cameras? I told them
to produce a stockpile that will hopefully(!) sell over time
(sometimes even over years) and actually spend most of the time
*producing*, but they just muttered "PeterN said we have to
do JIT".

Not stockpiling only works when your demand is identical to your
production line capacity or higher.

And exactly how to you know that a JIT process was not applied to a sale
by Canon to the dealer. I await your response.

I *said* they are using JIT, against my protests. Can't you read?

Why should Canon care about your protests.

*sigh*


Why should it matter if, by coincidence, a lens is ordered while
it's on the production line and thus Canon snatches a lens right
off the production line, when most of the time that's not the case?

Just as well to claim a lottery is a great money maker when
someone, somewhere has the one winner out of 100 million blanks ...


JIT means you never store things for more than a negible
amount of time. Hours, maybe a few days, no longer.

-Wolfgang

On 9/8/2011 5:13 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/2/2011 3:24 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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:

I see you silent.
Maybe you googled?

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

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.

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

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.)
[snip]

You are deliberately ignoring my comments, or evading what I said.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Ignoring my comments, *playing* a complete idiot in not
grasping dependent events (and implying everything is an
independent event) ... and then having the chuzpe of telling
*me*, *I* am ignoring your comments. Pfui!

"Prior events have nothing to do with the probability of the
next event." is, as I wrote, complete BULL**** outside specific
circumstances.

Market analysis *isn't* one of these circumstances, as you well
understand, for else noone would need accurate numbers of past
(i.e. *prior*) events --- which you claimed were needed.

Again you misquote me.

Really?

The clear meaning IN CONTEXT, of my comment which anyone discussing in
good faith should understand.

Accurate numbers are necessary when creating an adequate sample.

In the context of predicting marketing trends, you said:
| No predictive analysis can be more accurate than the numbers upon which
| it is based. that's why it is also referred to a probability analysis.
| 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.

Let's rephrase that:
1. predictive analysis can't be more accurate than it's
input.
2. predictive analysis is also called probability analysis:e
3. Coin flipping doesn't yield to predictive analysis (can't
use the input, can only use mathematical models that have
no input).
4. predictive analysis doesn't work (there never is any correlation
between prior events (input, s. 1.) and the future.

You're right, I should not have latched on the bull you
spouted in 4. I should have pointed out that you probably
mixed up lots of things:

- What has coin flipping to do with predicting maketing
trends?

- What ever happened to cleaning up numbers: averaging,
removal of outliers, etc?

- What ever happened to common sense? Having a fair coin land
200,000 times in a row on tails is 1:2^200,000 or ~1:10^60,206
... that's pretty clear proof it's not a fair coin.

- What is the need for accurate input if "[p]rior events have
have nothing to do with the probability of the next event"?

and so on.



Look at a Venn diagram an you will see that a sample is a subset of the
population. If you really believe that casual observations can be taken
as a statistically valid subset of the entire population, and are more
valid than published actual data, then I hope you have students who
question this closely. If your employer believes it, that's its problem

If you actually believe your "fair" coin would show 200,000 times
tail in a row (unless you have a enormous, stupendous, humungous,
colossal number of flips), then I really hope you have students
who laugh you out of class.

BTW:
If you bother to check, you will see that I brought the fair coin
example into this thread.

If only to show that predictive analysis is useless ...

-Wolfgang

As I said earlier I have no patience for your double talk and BS

--
Peter

PeterN wrote in
:

On 9/8/2011 5:13 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/2/2011 3:24 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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:

I see you silent.
Maybe you googled?

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

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.

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

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.)
[snip]

You are deliberately ignoring my comments, or evading what I said.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Ignoring my comments, *playing* a complete idiot in not
grasping dependent events (and implying everything is an
independent event) ... and then having the chuzpe of telling
*me*, *I* am ignoring your comments. Pfui!

"Prior events have nothing to do with the probability of the
next event." is, as I wrote, complete BULL**** outside specific
circumstances.

Market analysis *isn't* one of these circumstances, as you well
understand, for else noone would need accurate numbers of past
(i.e. *prior*) events --- which you claimed were needed.

Again you misquote me.

Really?

The clear meaning IN CONTEXT, of my comment which anyone discussing
in good faith should understand.

Accurate numbers are necessary when creating an adequate sample.

In the context of predicting marketing trends, you said:
| No predictive analysis can be more accurate than the numbers upon
| which it is based. that's why it is also referred to a probability
| analysis. 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.

Let's rephrase that:
1. predictive analysis can't be more accurate than it's
input.
2. predictive analysis is also called probability analysis:e
3. Coin flipping doesn't yield to predictive analysis (can't
use the input, can only use mathematical models that have
no input).
4. predictive analysis doesn't work (there never is any correlation
between prior events (input, s. 1.) and the future.

You're right, I should not have latched on the bull you
spouted in 4. I should have pointed out that you probably
mixed up lots of things:

- What has coin flipping to do with predicting maketing
trends?

- What ever happened to cleaning up numbers: averaging,
removal of outliers, etc?

- What ever happened to common sense? Having a fair coin land
200,000 times in a row on tails is 1:2^200,000 or ~1:10^60,206
... that's pretty clear proof it's not a fair coin.

- What is the need for accurate input if "[p]rior events have
have nothing to do with the probability of the next event"?

and so on.



Look at a Venn diagram an you will see that a sample is a subset of
the population. If you really believe that casual observations can
be taken as a statistically valid subset of the entire population,
and are more valid than published actual data, then I hope you have
students who question this closely. If your employer believes it,
that's its problem

If you actually believe your "fair" coin would show 200,000 times
tail in a row (unless you have a enormous, stupendous, humungous,
colossal number of flips), then I really hope you have students
who laugh you out of class.

BTW:
If you bother to check, you will see that I brought the fair coin
example into this thread.

If only to show that predictive analysis is useless ...

-Wolfgang

As I said earlier I have no patience for your double talk and BS


Don't pout now!

PeterN wrote:

[PeterN telling nonsense, but standing silent on important
questions]^]
[Me latching on a single part of the nonsense]
[PeterN complaining]
[Me agreeing, and refocussing on the whole nonsense]
[PeterN's whole answer:]

As I said earlier I have no patience for your double talk and BS

I apologize for not instantly agreeing to your nonsense and
bull****.

I apologize for pointing out you were inconsistent.

I apologize for not seeing your inherent superiority, whereas I
am a stupid dolt.

I apologize for not writing the flattery and ego massage you
wanted to hear in _your_ usenet --- after all, you paid for that.
Now I feel bad.

-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 9/8/2011 5:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/5/2011 4:26 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/2/2011 5:28 PM, tony cooper wrote:

There's no guarantee of accuracy, but it is to each submitter's best
interest to submit accurate figures. They are submitting the figures
in order to know what other manufacturers are doing. If they abuse
the system, the other manufacturers will abuse the system and no one
gains.

Because Apple is a publicly traded security, the knowing release of
inaccurate information could be a violation of Securities laws.

Could. In other words, you don't even know if it would. Much less
if other submitters provide true data, even if Apple does.

While your English is reasonably good, please don't take my precise
words to mean other than I have stated. Maybe you know all the facts. I
don't.

I read your words to mean "If I was Apple, I'd research if I'd
violate the Securities laws first, because I don't know if they
might be broken by submitting incorrect figures. IANAL."

Right?

If that's how you read my words, you read them wrong.

Would you kindly translate them, then?

-Wolfgang

On 9/10/2011 7:41 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

[PeterN telling nonsense, but standing silent on important
questions]^]
[Me latching on a single part of the nonsense]
[PeterN complaining]
[Me agreeing, and refocussing on the whole nonsense]
[PeterN's whole answer:]

As I said earlier I have no patience for your double talk and BS

I apologize for not instantly agreeing to your nonsense and
bull****.

I apologize for pointing out you were inconsistent.

I apologize for not seeing your inherent superiority, whereas I
am a stupid dolt.

I apologize for not writing the flattery and ego massage you
wanted to hear in _your_ usenet --- after all, you paid for that.
Now I feel bad.

-Wolfgang

Yawn!

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:

Unanswered question from earlier.

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

OK. I *have* to spell it out, I see.

Now, would you agree that laptops being seen have been bought?
Would you agree 90% have been bought within some reasonable time
frame, no more than, say 5 years ago?[1]

If they have been bought within a certain time frame (and they
have), then that is the periodic basis on which the period of
sale is accounted for. OK?

And that's good enough to get a ballpark check on the quoted
market share numbers, and to find out it doesn't fit.

BTW what is the factual basis for you answer that Macs have a 2.5 x
longer life cycle than Windows PCs


I'm perfectly happy to assume they have a shorter lifecycle than
Windows laptops --- in which case Apple mustr sell even more
of them.

Your choice:
- Either Mac laptops are not long lived, then Apple must sell
much more for the observed numbers to happen consistently
= Apple has an even larger market share and the quoted
market share must clearly be bogus
- Or Mac laptops are long lived, then they are better ... and
they must be *very* long lived to be the factor explaining
the consistently observed numbers.
= Apple builds devices that are much longer useful and
therefore much cheaper dollar for dollar than equally
priced Windows laptops-
Choose your poison.

-Wolfgang

[1] Or 3 years, or 7 years --- doesn't matter, just pick a number.

PeterN wrote:
On 9/5/2011 4:34 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 9/4/2011 6:54 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/16/2011 11:27 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/13/2011 6:00 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 8/9/2011 6:34 PM, nospam wrote:
wrote:
On 8/9/2011 3:45 PM, nospam wrote:

who said they're doctored? apple doesn't sell to a lot of markets in
which pcs are sold, so the numbers may be 'correct' but they are
misleading.

So no Macs are used in the workplace?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

i never said that.

Who did?

At a guess, a certain PeterN.

So show me where I said that. Inquiring minds want to know!

I've underlined the relevant part.

If take that comment IN CONTEXT you will quickly see that it doesn't
meant that at all.

If you take that comment IN CONTEXT, you will find that you
didn't grasp what I was saying when you made your comment.

And here ... you don't again. It seems the only one with the
idea of no Macs in the workplace was you.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your context reading.
There is even a question mark as the last character.

You DID say "So no Macs are used in the workplace?".
And if you look carefully, I *did* underline the question
mark, too.

I don;t know if you're think or jjust being obstinate

I do think, thank you.

With or without a question mark, IN CONTEXT I was saying is that your
conclusion

You were saying that that was my conclusion (now figure out if
that needs a '!', a '.' or a '?')

IN CONTEXT you were asking nospam. I've replaced the missing
CONTEXT. So IN CONTEXT that wasn't neither nospam's nor my
conclusion, but YOUR conclusion. And I dared to say so.

Are you just pretending to be arrogant and obstinate, or are you that
way all the time.

Ah, you're fresh out of arguments again. You're so easy to
read ...
You really need to work on your anger management.

-Wolfgang