Announcement

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 17:39

Originally posted by Agathon
I passed the logic requirement years ago. I've also taught formal logic and practical logic and contributed material that appears in a recently published critical reasoning textbook. If you want to criticise my logic, good luck. You'd do better if you realised that you most often criticise the truth of premises of an inference rather than its validity, anyway. The former is not, strictly speaking, a logical matter.

The problem, Agathon, is you:

**Agathon** · July 26, 2003, 17:41

Originally posted by Solver

Apple is failing because they did nothing to consolidate their wins. In 1993, Macs were better than PCs, and MacOS was far ahead of Windows 3.1.

This is mostly true. The CEOs from Sculley to Amelio were completely hopeless. Jobs managed to haul the company back from the brink. It's pretty safe now and has a loyal customer base.

Another reason is that Apple never contemplated selling its OS software to other companies or porting it to PCs until it was too late. Apple's view of the industry was that competing companies would make interoperable computers and there would be a competitive market. Unfortunately the MS monopoly changed all that - the market for computers is defective. And of course the DOJ threw away a brilliant chance to fix this.

You know, Asher, you'd be better shutting up if you can't address the actual argument.

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 17:42

Originally posted by Agathon
You know, Asher, you'd be better shutting up if you can't address the actual argument.

What's the actual argument?

And you're one to talk...in the iPod thread, you went from talking about MP3 players to PDA-features to audiophiles to vinyl...anything to avoid the issues that the iPod is a worse AUDIO player for more money.

You do it in virtually every thread you post in.

Unfortunately the MS monopoly changed all that - the market for computers is defective. And of course the DOJ threw away a brilliant chance to fix this.

Indeed, OS X and XP are similarly priced, but the hardware for the PC is extraordinarly cheaper.

The market is "defective" -- we need an Apple market to cut performance and double the price, along with fictious marketing and charging for yearly updates.

**Agathon** · July 26, 2003, 17:46

Originally posted by Asher

The problem, Agathon, is you:

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 17:48

Originally posted by Agathon
I'll ask again. Why is Apple's "monopoly" any different from that of any company that controls its own products?

Any company that restricts its own products to only work with its own products is a monopoly of that sub-segment.

The Apple market is not really the same market as the PC market. It's closed off, it's a closed-box hardware and software model rather than open like the PC.

It's a miniature monopoly cordoned off from the rest ofthe world.

You're focusing too much on the size aspect of it. Apple, of course, doesn't make every PC in the world. But they don't have to. If you want a PowerPC desktop, you have to go through Apple. If you go through Apple, you need to buy THEIR hardware. If you buy THEIR hardware, you need to buy THEIR software... where's the external choice? Hence: monopoly.

So are the sciences. mathematics and economics. But hey, let's ban tham all for talking such gobbledigook.

Indeed, the sciences have never contributed anything useful to society in the last ten years.

**Agathon** · July 26, 2003, 17:53

Originally posted by Asher

What's the actual argument?

Why don't you try thinking about it?

And you're one to talk...in the iPod thread, you went from talking about MP3 players to PDA-features to audiophiles to vinyl...anything to avoid the issues that the iPod is a worse AUDIO player for more money.

You changed the subject. You wanted to talk about audio quality and I, very reasonably in my opinion, said that mere numbers weren't sufficient to determine audio quality. That is a fact, you can't escape it. Hence I reserved judgement on which player has the better quality. There is simply not enough information in one figure to make such a judgement with reasonable chance of success.

You do it in virtually every thread you post in.

Yes, I continually point out that your "evidence" is not sufficient for the claims that you want to support with it. Very rarely do I make the blanket claims you do.

Indeed, OS X and XP are similarly priced, but the hardware for the PC is extraordinarly cheaper.

OS X is cheaper. But the hardware is more expensive. You can't buy a really cheap macintosh. So what? People want to use Apple software. If they are prepared to pay for it then that's up to them. If they didn't pay those prices there wouldn't be any Apple software.

The market is "defective" -- we need an Apple market to cut performance and double the price, along with fictious marketing and charging for yearly updates.

Of course the desktop computer market is defective. There's a virtual monopoly preventing users from enjoying the benefits of a competitive market. You can try and paint me as some sort of Stalinist, but I am fully aware of the benefits that a well regulated market can bring.

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 17:58

Originally posted by Agathon
Why don't you try thinking about it?

Oh, this is just brilliant. You accuse me of dodging the argument, I ask what the argument is, then you dodge the question. Splendid!

You changed the subject. You wanted to talk about audio quality and I, very reasonably in my opinion, said that mere numbers weren't sufficient to determine audio quality. That is a fact, you can't escape it.

And I agreed with you from the start, what you ignored is you had zero evidence or anything to contradict the numbers. So for all intents and purposes, the numbers are a great indicator.

Hence I reserved judgement on which player has the better quality. There is simply not enough information in one figure to make such a judgement with reasonable chance of success.

You reserved judgement because you believe Apple knows best.

OS X is cheaper.

OS X 10.2: $124.99 US (NO upgrade edition, plus Apple releases a new version to buy yearly, rather than every 4 years like MS -- and even then, an upgrade edition is available)
WinXP Home Upgrade: $94.99 (what the vast majority of people buy Windows XP for, if it doesn't come with the computer)

Of course the desktop computer market is defective. There's a virtual monopoly preventing users from enjoying the benefits of a competitive market.

How so?
I can install any OS I want on it. I can combine any hardware I like, from any vendor.

Where's the competitive restrictions?

**Agathon** · July 26, 2003, 18:05

Originally posted by Asher

Any company that restricts its own products to only work with its own products is a monopoly of that sub-segment.

Yes, I admitted this. It doesn't mean that it is bad in fact it is essential to the proper working of markets.

The Apple market is not really the same market as the PC market. It's closed off, it's a closed-box hardware and software model rather than open like the PC.

Yes, because otherwise it wouldn't exist. Introducing a competitive market into Mac hardware failed. That's why there isn't one. There is no possible market for mac hardware, that's been proved. However the same is not true for desktops as a whole.

This is the fundamental point you don't seem to get. Monopolies are only bad when they prevent people enjoying the benefits of an open market. But if getting rid of a "monopoly" (in the sense that Apple has a monopoly over its own products) means that no market will replace it and we'll end up with nothing (which is what would happen if the Mac OS was ported to x86). The point of anti-monopoly legislation is to stimulate competition, where it will do good. Only monopolies that reduce efficiency are monopolies in a bad sense. After all it isn't bad that Nike has a monopoly over its own products.

It's a miniature monopoly cordoned off from the rest ofthe world.

Then so is Nike and any company which has absolute power over its own products. Perhaps we should force Nike to give up all its IP to stimulate competition.

You're focusing too much on the size aspect of it. Apple, of course, doesn't make every PC in the world. But they don't have to. If you want a PowerPC desktop, you have to go through Apple. If you go through Apple, you need to buy THEIR hardware. If you buy THEIR hardware, you need to buy THEIR software... where's the external choice?

You can buy a PC and do pretty much the same things as Apple users. You can surf Apolyton, buy books online, use Quark Xpress. That's a competitive market.

Indeed, the sciences have never contributed anything useful to society in the last ten years.

Well, I suggest you read a newspaper or novel, or see a play or film and you will inevitably come across people trained in the humanities. Lots of philosophers too. You'd be surprised at how much we've infiltrated society.

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 18:10

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, because otherwise it wouldn't exist. Introducing a competitive market into Mac hardware failed.

It failed because Apple's whole business relies on forcing people to pay more for less. Once you have a competitive market, you pay less for less...and when you pay less, Apple makes less.

Monopolies are only bad when they prevent people enjoying the benefits of an open market.

I dunno, I think a $2000 2x 2GHz G5 would count as a benefit over a $4000 one, no?

Then so is Nike and any company which has absolute power over its own products. Perhaps we should force Nike to give up all its IP to stimulate competition.

This is a completely different scenerio -- Nike shoes are Nike shoes. They don't support a third party development community, they don't sue people who make other sneakers with the same tread paddings and materials into going out of business, and they don't have an economic "ecosystem" behind the product.

It's a very bad analogy.

You can buy a PC and do pretty much the same things as Apple users. You can surf Apolyton, buy books online, use Quark Xpress.

Can I play thousands of games on them? Can I cluster them? Can I replace the motherboard with a newer one? Can I swap out the CPU that I bought for $79 from the local vendor?

Well, I suggest you read a newspaper or novel, or see a play or film and you will inevitably come across people trained in the humanities. Lots of philosophers too. You'd be surprised at how much we've infiltrated society.

Oh, more wonderful logic: Philosophers exist, ergo they are useful.

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 18:12

And I'm not saying Apple should be broken up or forced to give away its IP ("Perhaps we should force Nike to give up all its IP to stimulate competition"), I'm saying they do have a monopoly and that's why a comparable Mac is twice as expensive as a PC.

And you're just completely insane if you think the PC market is "defective", when clearly it is the Mac market that's defective.

PCs give you more choice, less cost, and more software. How is this defective?

**Agathon** · July 26, 2003, 18:15

Originally posted by Asher

And I agreed with you from the start, what you ignored is you had zero evidence or anything to contradict the numbers. So for all intents and purposes, the numbers are a great indicator.

No they aren't. It's fallacious to assume so. Here's a comparable case.

According to your "logic"

(1) If I know only that a car has better fuel efficiency than other cars, then I should hold that it is the better car.

But this ignores the fact that I know a lot of things about cars and that there are many other properties of a car that are as important or more important than fuel efficiency. So even if I know that the car has better fuel efficiency, the probability of its being a better car overall is very low based on this one statistic. Since I know that the probability of it's being a better car solely based on fuel efficiency is very low, it is reasonable to say that I don't know, since it is more probable that I will make a mistake if I say it is the better car.

Your argument ignores my estimation of the probabilities of being right based on other knowledge I have.

Only if I have good reason to believe that improved fuel efficiency is a probable indicator of overall superiority, do I have to accept your inference.

You reserved judgement because you believe Apple knows best.

Mind reader are we. So what I actually said in the thread is not what i meant.

This debate is over until you go and read an economics textbook.

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 18:17

Originally posted by Agathon
No they aren't. It's fallacious to assume so. Here's a comparable case.

According to your "logic"

(1) If I know only that a car has better fuel efficiency than other cars, then I should hold that it is the better car.

How do you figure??
By my logic, the car with 30MPG has better fuel efficiency than a car with 15MPG.

Similarly, an MP3 player with 98dB SNR has better audio clarity than a player with 90dB SNR.

Only if I have good reason to believe that improved fuel efficiency is a probable indicator of overall superiority, do I have to accept your inference.

The argument wasn't an indictator of overall superiority. The audio quality was one thing in a long list, if you'll recall.

And a car with a measurement of 30MPG is better than 15MPG in fuel efficiency. By your logic, and by your persistent argument in that thread that anyone can view if they don't believe me, is that fuel efficiency is an art, and 30MPG doesn't necessarily mean it's more efficient.

This debate is over until you go and read an economics textbook.

My, that's grand...

You're the one that clearly doesn't understand markets if you think the PC's is defective while Apple's isn't.

Not to mention that you've started to construct strawmen again. My argument in the iPod thread was a better SNR ratio does imply better quality, much like a better MPG rating does imply better fuel efficiency. You insisted this is not necessarily the case! Which could be true, somehow, but you neglected to give us any reason why it is not the case.

You got your ass handed to you then, and you just got it again now.

**Agathon** · July 26, 2003, 18:47

Originally posted by Asher

The argument wasn't an indictator of overall superiority. The audio quality was one thing in a long list, if you'll recall.

Change the argument, why don't you. This was about audio quality. Some of the other stuff is debatable but I admitted that the Zen has longer battery life (it's size may be a factor here).

And a car with a measurement of 30MPG is better than 15MPG in fuel efficiency. By your logic, and by your persistent argument in that thread that anyone can view if they don't believe me, is that fuel efficiency is an art, and 30MPG doesn't necessarily mean it's more efficient.

No it doesn't. It only does it you misinterpret the analogy. Read more carefully and you might understand.

You're the one that clearly doesn't understand markets if you think the PC's is defective while Apple's isn't.

[sung to the tune of the 1812 overture]

Bam bam bam BAM bam bam, BAM bam bam BAM, BAM...

Not to mention that you've started to construct strawmen again. My argument in the iPod thread was a better SNR ratio does imply better quality, much like a better MPG rating does imply better fuel efficiency.

False equivalence here. I said that SNR ratio is a factor in higher audio quality, but that it is insufficient to make a rational judgment of it. That's what I said.

In the second case, I said that fuel efficiency is a factor in being a better car, but that alone is not sufficient to make a rational judgement of which is the better car overall.

You are assuming that I say in the former that what is being judged is whether it is a better player overall when my claim was about audio quality.

Again, you need to read more carefully.

You insisted this is not necessarily the case! Which could be true, somehow, but you neglected to give us any reason why it is not the case.

I did. People don't just look at SNR ratings to determine audio quality because there are other factors. The existence of these other factors means that a judgment of better quality based solely on SNR ratings has a low probability of being right. The best thing to do is listen to them.

You got your ass handed to you then, and you just got it again now.

In your dreams. What this thread shows to anyone who understands logic is that you can't seem to see the distinctions I am making. You are using a sledgehammer where a small chisel is appropriate.

Actually we need a word for your logical equivalent of premature ejaculation in these situations.

**Asher** · July 26, 2003, 18:52

Originally posted by Agathon
No it doesn't. It only does it you misinterpret the analogy. Read more carefully and you might understand.

The analogy was completely off-base, I didn't misinterpret it. My argument was NEVER "Zen has 98, iPod has 90, so Zen is better". My argument included a long list of reasons, audio quality being one of them, in which the Zen's measurements are substantially better.

Your analogy is either intentionally totally off, or you not only lack reasoning, logic, and debate skills, but reading comprehension as well.

False equivalence here. I said that SNR ratio is a factor in higher audio quality, but that it is insufficient to make a rational judgment of it. That's what I said.

But you never provided us with any example why, aside from your pompous "oh it is an art, it is an art, real hi-fi nuts use $1M turntables, and it is an art"...

In the second case, I said that fuel efficiency is a factor in being a better car, but that alone is not sufficient to make a rational judgement of which is the better car overall.

The mind boggles why you think this relevant to anything...

I've never said that the 98dB measurement alone is enough to say which is the better player. The MPG figure alone is enough to say which is more fuel efficient, unless contrary evidence is supplied. Ditto with SNR ratios.

Again, you need to read more carefully.

No, Agathon, you do -- I even clarified my position in the last post and you still do not understand. I completely understand yours, but you keep refuting points I never said because it's easier for you.

In your dreams. What this thread shows to anyone who understands logic is that you can't seem to see the distinctions I am making. You are using a sledgehammer where a small chisel is appropriate.

No, what this thread shows is you also lack reading comprehension skills, constantly construct strawmen, and use such insane logic that it boggles the mind...

Cut your (enormous) losses.

**Agathon** · July 26, 2003, 19:00

Originally posted by Asher

I've never said that the 98dB measurement alone is enough to say which is the better car. The MPG figure alone is enough to say which is more fuel efficient, unless contrary evidence is supplied. Ditto with SNR ratios...

But this is just the false equivalency I mentioned. You seem to be unable to grasp it.

I claimed SNR ratios are not sufficient to determine a sound judgement on overall audio quality.

I claimed that fuel efficiency is not sufficient to determine a sound judgement of overall car quality.

I did not claim anything about MPG. That's your little insertion either intended to fudge the argument or because you didn't read mine.

Nor did I claim that fuel efficiency is not sufficient to determine a rational judgment of fuel effiency (that would be absurd); and mutatis mutandis for SNR ratings.

I had thought that you were merely desperately trying to bluster your way out of this mess. Now I think you can't even see why you are mistaken. And you dare to impugn my logical skills.

That's enough from me. I can't see the point of explaining what I mean over and over until you get it. I can get paid to do that sort of thing.

Announcement

If you use Windows NT 4, 2000, XP, or 2003, click here

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment