Google| Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/20/2014 20:16 (04/20/2014 20:16) |
| Message-ID | <slrnll83rr.sun.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
In article <k4t7l9hb0nde06hmq3r43gm0te9ei0e6qs@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:
If you expected him to be correct, then why did you even go there to check up on it?Tony CooperSandmanSandmanTony Cooper
Tony found one anomaly when checking 24 items one time, and treated it as statistics - you just agreed with me that it doesn't mean anything since it says nothing about the state of anomalies in a statistical manner.
An "anomaly"? Where do you get that? An anomaly is something that is unusual or unexpected.
Working cameras on display isn't expected to you? Hmmm...
No. The observation was a result of a visit to a Best Buy because of nospam's earlier comments about the frequency of nonworking display units. So, the expectation was that there would be many nonworking units.
Even so, there are different kind of expectations. You either found one anomaly or you found 23 anomalies.
True enough, but that doesn't change my expectations. You can either use the word to mean what is likely, or to be what is rightfully or appropriate. I meant the latter, while you mean the former.Tony CooperOne non-working camera out of 24 cameras on display would not be considered to be something unusual or unexpected in a Best Buy. In fact, nospam is vigorously arguing that non-functional display models *would be* expected.Sandman
I expect cameras to be on display to be in working order.
That's a generality, but this is about a specific: Best Buy displays and nospam's contention.
It's more than one anomaly, actually. And it's still not a statistically valid counter of his claim.SandmanTony Cooper
Sounds to contradict your earlier assessement, seeing how nospam said that they're "often" non-working, which you now confirm is what you expect to be the case as well, yet to his comment you replied with non-statistical data and implied that you countered his "often".
Yes, the anomaly was that the observation resulted in fewer nonworking cameras than nospam had led me to think I would find. It is not an anomaly that one out of 24 is nonworking at Best Buy because there is no expectation of 100% working units, but it is an anomaly if you accept nospam's premise.
I never claimed you did. I have repeatedly said it isn't. You offered up non-statistical data in a statistical context. You replied with irrelevant data.Tony CooperTo turn the tables on you, please cite where I said that the observation was a statistic. Or, even "treated" it (whatever that means) as a statistic.Sandman
It's the other way around - nospam made a claim about "often" which is a conclusion based on statistical data, you countered that with non-statistical data and claimed 'I wouldn't call that "often"'.
Don't duck the question. Cite where I said it was a statistic.
Do try to work out the difference between a report of an observation and the presentation of non-statistical data. Also, do try to understand that nospam presented no statistical data.No data, no. But his "often" was based on data, even though I'm sure he couldn't put that data into actual numbers, but estimates are data as well, it's just not "hard data" or "specific data".
It's the kind of data many people work with, when trouble shooting computers, the user may provide statistical data that are estimates or guesses ("it usually shuts down about ten minutes after I turn it on", etc).
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
