Posts by R Cox

TOC games

This is same game with total cost of ownership. The best way to respond is to simply say, as MS used to say, that MS is only cheaper if your time is worth nothing.

Also, if we are looking at a family of four, one has to look at total upgrade costs. On the Mac, the full upgrade, for up to five computers, is only marginally higher than a single home premium upgrade. In fact, upgrading two computers to Vista Home, and probably MS Windows 7, will cost likely cost more than upgrading 2-5 computers in a household to complete version of Mac OS 10.6. The same is true of iLife and iWork, which are released every year, but there is no reason to upgrade every year.

The only thing correct in the article is a choice of a Mac or PC boils down to opportunity costs. Is it necessary for you have all PCs in a house, or can a mixed environment work. I for one, if I had the child discussed i the article, would be more comfortable with a Mac that allows parental control accounts rather than paying extra for PC software that does the same things, but can be hacked and disabled by most kids.

The Performa

This advice is very similar to the advice that lead to the Mac Zoo of the early and mid 90's. In my opinion, this excess of hardware lead to a lack of focus on quality and a lack of development in the software. Apple forgot it was a systems builder, not just a outfit that stuck parts together and then slapped in an OS. Computers like the performa did allow more people to buy the computer, but did not increase long term market share.

What happened was that apple just began putting computers together to meet a price point, rather than building systems that met consumers needs. For instance, my newton was a wonderful computer, but it was not integrated as system with the mac. The palm was, so even though palm was an inferior machine, I eventually traded my newton for a palm V.

So no, apple does not have to serve every segment of the phone market, any more than it has to serve every segment of the computer market. What it has to do is design software, and keep hardware costs down, so people who want a systen, rather than a random collection of parts, will pay the markup.

Seems like peripheral

This seems an extension of what already happens on the keyboard and mouse. The change seems to be a 'universal rechargeable battery' which can be swapped and recharged on the host machine. This would certainly reduce the number of batteries that get improperly disposed of under the current throw-away regime. I seriously doubt that this is a move to away from the non-user serviceable battery in laptops or even the iPhone. The volume and forms factors of these batteries are simply too variable.

Not so easy to avoid safari

It is not so easy to avoid safari on Macs. The default is Safari unless the user changes it after install time. Even if the user changes the default away from Safari, I find that the defaults will occasionally magically revert back to Safari. Safari is never gone, many parts of it appear to be as entwined into OS X as IE is in MS Windows. If MS manages to make a browser other than IE the true default, it will have done something that Apple has not done. Even pre-Safari the default was whatever browser happened to have control at the time.

good analogy, misses the point

It is true that Apple is creating a monopoly for the iPhone, and theoretically they can raise the price at any time. On the other hand, we see from the iTunes store other products that Apple tends not to raise the price of a product, even when pressured by the content provider. So it equivocal whether they would risk the iPhone franchise by forcing higher prices on software given that they have not risked the iPod market by raising prices on music.

Of course it ti snot clear that comparing the iPhone and Google markets is valid. The iPhone directly generates money for Apple, so they can afford to promote free Apps. Any Android based phone probably only indirectly benefits Google by increasing the base to which they can push ads. It is probably not in their interest to support a global store. Also, since it still seems like phones are going to be connected to cell phone companies, it is unclear whether all phones are going to allow all Apps. It is possible that some phone company will modify android, which they are allowed to do, to only work with approved content on the cell phone store.

So while the Apple strategy is worrisome, and those that have a problem with it should not buy or develop for iPhone, it is too early to say that the Google strategy is going to give an overall advantage to developers or consumers.

It is good to be rich

I talk to my students about advertising. I say sometimes it about creating brand awareness in market category. I say sometimes it is about creating a need for a product. And sometimes it is simply about spending money so the world know you are a company that is so successful you have money to waste on a pointless bit of advertising. The MS commercial is the later. It is the ultimate payback from a geek. No matter how cooler you are than me, no matter how much better your products area, no matter how much more popular you are, I am the one with so much cash I can blow a wad on something that is fundamentally useless. It is like the extravagant sweet sixteen parties for ultra rich teenagers. A swan song and finger to those that would criticize the innate perfection of money.

Every Time I try to use MS OS

I have two or three applications that runs on MS Windows. Every few years I think it would be nice to run these on my own machine, so I fork over the money for MS Windows, install it, go through the interrogation proving I am licensed to use the product I paid for, and go happily on my way. I realize that MS software is really quite good, and wonder why I don't just switch over to it for home use.

Then comes the problem where I have to reinstall, or change the virtual machine, and I get the ominous warning. You cannot reactivate. You will not be able to run this machine after x number of days. You must call in and get a special code. Honestly I paid for the software, and only use it one machine. I am not a pirate. I just want to get my work done without the threats of destruction just because MS thinks I might, possible, be a pirate. I have enough problems without the fear of MS suing me. This makes it pretty clear that MS products are not reliable, and we are better off using other products.

In related news

A study was conducted to determine the gum stealing habits of 11-16 year olds, as compared to those persons over 16. It was shown that 61% of those under 16 regularly steals gum, while only 15% of those over 16 so do. When the under 16 year old kids were asked why they resort to such heinous criminal activity, which will likely lead to the store going out of business , these young felons invariably replied "my mom won't give me money for gum".

random versus systematic error.

Quoteth:From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down - thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph

This statement is only valid concerning random errors. Such errors are quantified by statistics and are shown by error bars. All data has random error, and most properly reported data includes an indication of random error, most often in the form of error bars. Certainly one does not flip a coin to choose which side of the random error one will choose for each point. It is random, it is a confidence level, so all that can be done is to state the theoretical error.

There is a second type of error. This is systematic error. This error occurs not by random chance, but by some material error in the measurement process. Systematic error can be caused by a bad reading, an improper zero offset, or a bad calibration curve. Systematic errors can sometimes be detected through statistical analysis, for instance one might discard all 'outliers', at one's own peril, but most often these errors either remain undetected, or, upon detection, require exactly the kind of recalculation condemned in the article.

In the present case, there is no credible reason presented in the article to indicate that some older data might be preferentially treated with respect to some new data. Certainly, one can imagine that older instruments might have systematic errors that are different from those on newer instruments. We can even suggest that an analysis of the random error on older instruments might be such that the states skewing of the graph might occur.

I am not saying that the NASA analysis is correct. However, the authors argument seems sufficiently invalid to be ignored.