...and it's gone again
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Chris Ridd on 27 Sep 2006 09:29 On 2006-09-27 14:20:45 +0100, real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) said: > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > >>>> No, Ian is evidence. Not statistically significant evidence, >>>> certainly. >>> >>> I think you just don't quite understand how the word "evidence" works. >> >> Ian (well, his MBP) is circumstantial evidence that <insert failure mode >> here>? > > Argh. You're doing this on purpose to torment me, aren't you? Well... > Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is not direct, which is to say > it is most evidence. There is no reason why it should not be as strong > as direct evidence. OTOH Dictionary.app also says: circumstantial adjective 1 they have only circumstantial evidence indirect, inferred, deduced, conjectural; inconclusive, unprovable. (hope that pastes OK) I'd say "conjectural" or "inconclusive" covers Ian's er, experience. Cheers, Chris
From: Tim Auton on 27 Sep 2006 10:56 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:59:51 +0100, Tim Auton > <tim.auton(a)uton.borg.invalid> wrote: > >>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >>[Failing laptops] >>> I'd also like to point out that to a manufacturer of laptops it is >>> economically far more sensible to send out eg ten replacement hard >>> drives over the lifetime of an over-warm laptop, than it is to recall >>> the laptop and replace it with a model that is designed better. >> >>If you only factor in the cost of replacements, couriers, technicians >>and customer service staff you might come in under the cost (to Apple) >>of a MacBook Pro, though I doubt you'd come in under the cost of a >>MacBook. > > That would be pretty close, yes. My "ten" was carefully chosen to be > an upper limit on viable replacement rather than the average that you > may have taken it to be. Apologies if that interrupts the flow of the > rest of your post. Ah, that makes a bit more sense, use of the word 'recall' made me think you were talking about a large-scale thing, not individual cases. I don't think spending the entire cost of a replacement on repeatedly repairing the same fault is economic though, even on the individual level. Each successive identical repair has a lower probability of success - the probability that the fault is in the machine not the replaced part increases. Once you get to 3 or 4 identical repairs, the probability of eventually having to provide a refund or replacement is so high it's surely best to cut your losses and stop wasting money on futile repairs. Tim
From: zoara on 27 Sep 2006 11:34 On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:20:45 +0100, D.M. Procida wrote: > Ian's experiences are data. They might form part of a body of evidence > about failure modes, if a lot more similar data can be collected. Until > then, they are not evidence of anything except that Ian hasn't had much > luck so far. It's evidence that I'm now free of the Curse. -z- -- iPod killer, coming zune.
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 27 Sep 2006 11:36 On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:04:14 +0100, real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> No, Ian is evidence. Not statistically significant evidence, >> certainly. > >I think you just don't quite understand how the word "evidence" works. That's a coincidence, I don't think you do. I've appended the OED2's idea of what "evidence" means. It includes my usage, sections I and II. It also includes your usage under III, noting that this is legal jargon. Since we're not in a court of law, I move that common usage holds sway. So to avoid confusion perhaps you could use "proof" instead? >Let's suppose, just for sake of argument, that it turns out that Ian's >hard disk drives have failed because the delivery driver on his route >always treats things really roughly (or whatever; it doesn't actually >matter what). If this (or something else) were the case, then the drive >failures could not possibly be evidence for the claim that they are >failing because of excess heat. So, until you have established a very >good reason for supposing that the failures are heat-induced you have no >basis for claiming his experiences as part of the body of evidence. Yes, lets. After enough of that sort of _evidence_ is collected, it can be statistically analysed. Remember to include Ian's measurements of external temperatures (that would be more evidence), and I expect that in the absence of verifiable delivery drivers (or whatever) there are calculated odds of hard drives being damaged in transit. It is entirely possible that Ian has just had three drives in a row that were predisposed to die after a few days. The odds are against it, because verifiable numbers of drives do that. So we apply Occam's razor and look further for an environmental factor. >> Don't take this too unkindly, but I'm rather looking forward to your >> own over-warm (though non-laptop) hard drive cooking itself. > >That's nice. How would you like me to take it? With the usual daily backup. Are you going to do anything about those rather high temperatures? If not, is it because you think that there's no evidence for heat damage to hard drives? >> You'll have noticed the various references recently to exploding >> batteries recently? There have been quotes from various (annoyingly >> underspecified) sources talking about thermal runaway exacerbated by >> laptop design, as well as the known manufacturing problem. > >Ah yes, various (annoyingly underspecified) sources. In the age of the >Internet, the greatest authority of all. That's the annoying part. I intended to write "It wouldn't satisfy me either" somewhere towards the end of that para, but didn't get round to a final edit before nipping off to the dentist. >Still, I guess it's more harmless than deciding >that the strange woman at the edge of the village is practising >witchcraft or that a few dozen parents are into satanic ritual abuse of >children. That's true. It's better then dropping atomic weapons on Japan, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic either. Cheers - Jaimie Evidence (n.) I. 1. The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness. b. in evidence [after F. en ?vidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous. ?2. Manifestation; display. Obs. II. That which manifests or makes evident. 3. An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also ?to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications. b. In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation. ?4. Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs. 5. Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion. Const. for, of (the thing to be proved), from, of (the source of testimony). ?to have evidence to say, etc.: to have good grounds for saying, etc. (For external, internal, moral, probable evidence, see these adjs.) ?b. an evidence: something serving as a proof. Obs. Cf. 8. c. Evidence or Evidences of Christianity, of the Christian Religion, or simply The Evidences. III. Legal uses of 5. 6. Information, whether in the form of personal testimony, the language of documents, or the production of material objects, that is given in a legal investigation, to establish the fact or point in question. Also, an evidence = a piece of evidence. Phrases to bear, give in, give evidence. to call in evidence: to call as a witness. For circumstantial, parole, presumptive, prim? facie, verbal, etc. evidence, see these adjs. b. the evidence: the testimony which in any particular cause has been received by the court and entered on its records. Similarly, to be or produce in evidence: to be a part, or to produce as a part, of the evidence before the court. c. Statements or proofs admissible as testimony in a court of law. ?7. One who furnishes testimony or proof; a witness. Sometimes collect. = ?witnesses.? Obs. ?b. transf. A spy. Obs. c. to turn King's (Queen's, State's) evidence (formerly also ?to turn evidence), said of an accomplice or sharer in a crime: to offer himself as a witness for the prosecution against the other persons implicated. ?8. A document by means of which a fact is established (see quot. 1628); esp. title-deeds. (In 15?16th c. often in collective sense = ?documents?; sometimes with a numeral, as if mistaken for an actual plural. Cf. evident.) Obs. exc. Hist. and in legal formu -- "I went to a planet where the dominant lifeform had no bilateral symmetry, and all I got was this stupid F-Shirt."
From: D.M. Procida on 27 Sep 2006 13:35
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:04:14 +0100, > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > > >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > > >> No, Ian is evidence. Not statistically significant evidence, > >> certainly. > > > >I think you just don't quite understand how the word "evidence" works. > > That's a coincidence, I don't think you do. I've appended the OED2's > idea of what "evidence" means. It includes my usage, sections I and > II. It also includes your usage under III, noting that this is legal > jargon. Funny, I thought that the relevant use of "evidence" in this context was: > 5. Ground for belief; And it is amply clear that Ian's experience provide no grounds whatsoever for belief that there is a heat-related issue in Apple's MacBooks which causes hard disk drives to fail, except for people who are able to move from a single datum to a general rule. Daniele |