Crapple Iphone... ohh brother...

[Halsu]

Really? I have Western Digital hard disks, Sony and Canon cameras (yes, I consider them computer accessories, nowadays), a Brother b&w laser, a Wacom tablet, a Logitech mouse, a Samsung color laser, an Acer HD-display, a Microtek scanner, Kensington RAM, etc...

Hardly just "the same manufacturer"... and you know, all of them worked without installing any esoteric drivers!

You are of course correct, that was a brain fart on my part - i haven't fully woken up today, sorry.

As far as installing drivers goes, both Macs and PC:s usually do that automatically nowadays, without user intervention, no difference there.

Yes, but does it matter, really?

To me it really does. To the average user, probably not that much.

And Windows users don't? There are bad apples on every tree - if you allow me the pun...

I'm pretty sure some windows users do, it would be odd if there were no such cases. But Huey still insists that Mac users never do. Which is rather funny, odd and ironic - that's is why i've been poking him with a stick for the last few days ;-)

[Janke]

that was a brain fart on my part - i haven't fully woken up today, sorry.

Indeed... your brain is obviously running on Windoze this morning!

BTW, looking at Clas Ohlson's catalog, I see a multitude of third-party accessories for the iPhones, iPads, and iPods - so, nobody is really locked into Apple hardware, there, either.

[HueyNRolf]

And you can run windows on a regular Mac, not bad for an Orwellian regime.

[Halsu]

Double post. Whoops.

[cgbier]

What freedom of choice do I give up with a Mac?

[cgbier]

We even got an automotive scanner to run on a MacBook. Of course, not the one with the obsolete COM port.

[Halsu]

Daniel, no, it didn't. It has been mentioned several times before. Just look at the family pics he posted. I feel bad for them.

Well, i've yet to see him go overboard except as a response to profanities, attacks against him. He's actually much more controlled than Krute and Huey, IMO. I do not remember him starting a fight, only hitting back (with an unnecessarily heavy sledgehammer, of course).

What family pics? Haven't seen those, so no comments there.

Halsu, I don't have problems with closed, integrated systems. Especially, since I have worked on the AS/400.

As said, i prefer open - But it's a matter of choice of course. As said earlier, i can see why one would prefer the ease of use and reliability of a closed system, and be willing to give up some of the freedom of choice. It's a perfectly valid choice, even if i personally chose otherwise.

[Halsu]

What freedom of choice do I give up with a Mac?

I think i already listed some (and made a stupid morning-brain mistake there too ;-)

[Halsu]

Indeed... your brain is obviously running on Windoze this morning!

Yep, that was a BSOD right there ;-)

BTW, looking at Clas Ohlson's catalog, I see a multitude of third-party accessories for the iPhones, iPads, and iPods - so, nobody is really locked into Apple hardware, there, either.

That'd be correct too, of course.

[Halsu]

Scientists? Are you sure about that? I did a search on the two authors and can find nothing on them.

Really?

Professor Russel W. Belk, York University:
http://research.schulich.yorku.ca/fa...sp?id=95&tab=0
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar?hl=...1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Associate professor Gülnur Tumbat, San Francisco state university:
http://sfsu.academia.edu/GulnurTumbat
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar?q=%...n&as_sdt=0%2C5

I can find no peer reviews on this study either.

Do you have a slightest idea how peer review works in scientific literature?? It seems not.

Let me help you: when a research paper is submitted to an academic journal, the editors of that journal send the article to other experts in the same field for a review. Anonymously, in order to avoid personal bias. The reviewers then comment the paper, looking for problems, suggest corrections. This feedback is forwarded to the authors of the paper. Again, anonymously. They make corrections if necessary. The revised paper is sent to a second round of review, and the peer reviewers make another round of comments, often also giving their opinion whether the paper is worth publishing or not. Finally, based on the reviews, the editor of the journal makes a decision to either accept and publish, or reject the paper.

Peer review is not a proof that the thesis in a paper is 100% correct, but it does indeed weed out substandard work rather efficiently. And no, you're not supposed to find the peer review comments with a google search.

Edit: what you can find easily (with a google scholar search) is citations of an article. Usually, the more citations there are, the more noteworthy a paper is. This one has 142 citations in other papers, which is a lot.
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar?cit...iodt=0,5&hl=en

I'm not making anything up, I'm just commenting on what I read and there's no way of knowing if these interviews are legit or not. It's also possible that they cheery-picked the exerts to match the hypothesis. Either way, there's nothing convincing let alone proven in this paper. I suspect it's a couple of college students writing a paper. I could be wrong, but that's how it reads.

That's a conspiracy theory right there. A textbook example of budding science denialism. Does your tin foil hat fit well?

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full

Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought.

[Halsu]

That's the standard way to write a scientific paper.

I hope that was sarcasm.

[HueyNRolf]

Professor Russel W. Belk, York University:
http://research.schulich.yorku.ca/fa...sp?id=95&tab=0
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar?hl=...1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Associate professor Gülnur Tumbat, San Francisco state university:
http://sfsu.academia.edu/GulnurTumbat
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar?q=%...n&as_sdt=0%2C5

So I was right, they're not scientists. They're marketing professors, hence the lack of scientific method to the paper.

It's up to you if you want to buy it, but I don't. You'll just take it on faith because you want to believe it. Set aside your appeal to authority and there's not much left.

That's a conspiracy theory right there. A textbook example of science denialism. Does your tin foil hat fit well?

It's NOT a scientific paper.

[Halsu]

So I was right, they're not scientists.

You gotta be kidding me? You can't be that thick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lines#Business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist

Unbelievable.

It's NOT a scientific paper.

A paper that follows the scientific method, written by two university professors, published in a peer reviewed journal, cited by 142 scientific articles is not a scientific paper?

What would be your requirements then?

[HueyNRolf]

You gotta be kidding me? You can't be that thick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lines#Business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist

Unbelievable.



A paper that follows the scientific method, written by two university professors, published in a peer reviewed journal, cited by 142 scientific articles is not a scientific paper?

What would be your requirements then?

It's irrelevant. All you've done is made an appeal to authority. As for peer review, there is no standard, it depends on the field or profession in which the activity occurs. So in this case, it doesn't mean anything, to say it was peer reviewed, without specifying to what standard is was reviewed to.


As for the paper, I've given my objections, feel free to address those.

See also scientific method.

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"

Can you show where this paper demonstrates this?

[Halsu]

It's irrelevant. All you've done is made an appeal to authority.

No, no, no. You made claims that

A) The paper is not a scientific paper, against all so far presented evidence
B) The authors are not scientists, against all so far presented evidence
C) That the authors probably faked the results, against all so far presented evidence
D) That study of marketing is not a scientific, academic discipline, against all so far presented evidence

Sure if I made claims related to those links, then I would have a burden of proof to support such claims.

Please provide proof to support your claims, be a man, not a dancer in a tutu and a tin foil hat, crowned with ripped underwear.

[HueyNRolf]

Well I guess I'm just an old scientific method fanboi,

A) The paper is not a scientific paper, against all so far presented evidence

It's not scientific because it doesn't comply with the scientific method.

B) The authors are not scientists, against all so far presented evidence

They're not scientists when they write papers which don't comply with the scientific method.

C) That the authors probably faked the results, against all so far presented evidence

That's a strawman, I think i said that there's no way to know if the interviews are legit or cherry picked. Again, this would be a requirement for compliance with the scientific method.

D) That study of marketing is not a scientific, academic discipline, against all so far presented evidence

I don't think I made that claim, but if that's what you inferred, then OK, I'll concede that point..

Please provide proof to support your claims, be a man, not a dancer in a tutu and a tin foil hat, crowned with ripped underwear.

Guess what? It's the scientific method.

[Halsu]

It's not scientific because it doesn't comply with the scientific method.

...

They're not scientists when they write papers which don't comply with the scientific method.

...

Guess what? It's the scientific method.

Making a new, unsubstantiated claim is not evidence. Nor is repeating that claim - repeating a lie does not make it true. The above only means you have made one more claim you need to support with evidence.

That's a strawman, I think i said that there's no way to know if the interviews are legit or cherry picked. Again, this would be a requirement for compliance with the scientific method.

In other words, you do not claim, but merely suggest that the scientists faked their results. I will change the wording accordingly.

I don't think I made that claim, but if that's what you inferred, then OK, I'll concede that point..

You did:

So I was right, they're not scientists. They're marketing professors,

But okay, i will remove that item from your todo list because you admit your claim was false.

****

Revised list of claims Huey has failed to support with evidence:

A) The paper is not a scientific paper, against all so far presented evidence
B) The authors are not scientists, against all so far presented evidence
C) That the authors possibly faked the results, against all so far presented evidence *** modified to more accurately reflect Huey's claim
D) That study of marketing is not a scientific, academic discipline, against all so far presented evidence *** Huey has now admitted this claim was false
E) That the paper in question does not comply with the scientific method, against all so far presented evidence

Sure if I made claims related to those links, then I would have a burden of proof to support such claims.

I think i should add the above to my signature, i think i will need to repeat that quote for quite some time...

[HueyNRolf]

I mean just look at this horseshit.

The origin myth for Apple as well as the resurrection myth for Steve Jobs were discussed by most informants.

Most informants? How many answered the question?

Q: ‘Could you give us a brief history of Apple Corporation, key events, key people if you know?

A: About Apple? From what I’ve learned, it all started out with of course Steven Jobs and Michael Wozniak in their garage as a couple of young guys. And they created that Apple II, that first initial Apple and from there they created a company out of it all and it started to blossom and they made a lot of initial money off of it. And Wozniak left the company and retained some stock options and stuff like that and Jobs became the big guy. And I think then he got a little disillusioned with some of the movement early on and kind of went off on his own and created that NeXT systems. And then a whole series of guys like Scully and various different people came in as the CEO’s of Mac, of Apple, and it never really quite had that initial flavor that Wozniak and Jobs had introduced into the system. And then when he reemerged and came back into it I think he brought a lot of life back into Apple and revitalized some things and brought it back to its initial vision. I think he’s quite a visionary with regard to computers and so forth. (Mark)

Why was this response chosen? What did the other informants say?

[Halsu]

I mean just look at this horseshit.

...

Most informants? How many answered the question?

...

Why was this response chosen? What did the other informants say?

Asking questions is not evidence.


Revised list of claims Huey has failed to support with evidence:

A) The paper is not a scientific paper, against all so far presented evidence
B) The authors are not scientists, against all so far presented evidence
C) That the authors possibly faked the results, against all so far presented evidence *** modified to more accurately reflect Huey's claim
D) That study of marketing is not a scientific, academic discipline, against all so far presented evidence *** Huey has now admitted this claim was false
E) That the paper in question does not comply with the scientific method, against all so far presented evidence

Sure if I made claims related to those links, then I would have a burden of proof to support such claims.

Firstly, I'll set that aside, because whenever I ask you to provide evidence to support your claims it drags on too long and goes nowhere.

[Dr. Benway]

What freedom of choice do I give up with a Mac?

The freedom to think different. You are now a Starbucks-frequenting, black turtleneck wearing sheep.

[Bob Sanders]

Halsu, he has been bitching about LINUX just the same. At least, there he took the effort and download it. I think what he's portraying is nothing else but a deeply disturbed personality.

I have?

About the only thing I have said about linux is it's not really usable because it lacks serious driver support. Maybe you can show me where I have said much else???

[Bob Sanders]

Are you really too stupid to do some research on your own? I bet you that roughly 99% of the world's population (number just made up for the sake of rhetoric) knows that you only get apps via the AppStore, and that you need an Apple ID for that.

Prove it.

[Bob Sanders]

it's not hate.

..

[HueyNRolf]

E) That the paper in question does not comply with the scientific method, against all so far presented evidence

Because the scientific method requires that "a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

How on earth can you measure the evidence when most of it has been omitted?

Clearly all these so called scientists have done is select responses. Presumably to fit the hypothesis.

[Halsu]

Because the scientific method requires that "a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

How on earth can you measure the evidence when most of it has been omitted?

Clearly all these so called scientists have done is select responses. Presumably to fit the hypothesis.

Again, you just repeat your claim, without supporting it with evidence. Also, now you clearly accuse the scientists of a fraud, instead of just implying it. I modified the list to reflect that.

Revised list of claims Huey has failed to support with evidence:

A) The paper is not a scientific paper, against all so far presented evidence
B) The authors are not scientists, against all so far presented evidence
C) That the authors have faked the results, against all so far presented evidence *** modified to more accurately reflect Huey's claim (from probably to possibly) *** Modified again (from "possibly" to "have")
D) That study of marketing is not a scientific, academic discipline, against all so far presented evidence *** Huey has now admitted this claim was false
E) That the paper in question does not comply with the scientific method, against all so far presented evidence

Sure if I made claims related to those links, then I would have a burden of proof to support such claims.

Firstly, I'll set that aside, because whenever I ask you to provide evidence to support your claims it drags on too long and goes nowhere.