new RPi model B planned soon

If the Model A is planned for March 2013, then RPF's banner headline will have declared the Pi as the $25 computer for a whole year by then.  Isn't there a law against such blatant long-term false advertising?

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

If the Model A is planned for March 2013, then RPF's banner headline will have declared the Pi as the $25 computer for a whole year by then.  Isn't there a law against such blatant long-term false advertising?

coder27 is being gamesome.  The link is to a 20 Feb 2012 comment where liz promises that "you'll definitely be able to buy Model As in March".  True, she doesn't specify the year.

Pretty shonky attitude there, Morgan.

Nothing I've said is wrong, or a straw man argument. And I reckon my experience actually working in this sector and actually knowing what I am talking about  trumps your inconsistent arguments. Don;t give me nonsense about reasoned argument  - you dont need to argue when presented with actual facts. You lost, admit it, or are you incacable of accepting you could be wrong about something. That's not reasoned argument, that being bloody minded.

For example, my statement "fabless companies in this area are not in the game of making stuff in advance and storing it just in case" is completely true and contains no straw shaped man. You in an earlier post stated Broadcom should make a load of chips up front without receiving  orders. I told you this is not the way they work. They make according to the backorders they are told about i.e by the people who actually know the numbers ie RS and Farnell.  They don;t make stuff that hasnt been ordered. They might make stuff up front if they are told by the manufacturer they expect to sell a particular number, but that owuld need to be a multi million chip order, not the small change orders fom the Raspberry Pi foundation. Some chip companies do make to fill warehouses, not companies like Broadcom, that's not their business. I dunno specifics, as I don;t work for any of them, but the only way Broadcom could know the actual order numbers required in the backlog is if RS or Farnell told them, and they way they do that is by ORDERING THEM. So they order enough for the backlog, plus the extra they expect to sell between receipt and the next order time. My guess is the RS completely failed to anticipate the demand would still be high and failed to order enough. Broadcom has exactly the same number of working crystal balls as anyone else, so without numbers from orders, they ain;'t gonna guess how many to make.

Jesus, its the middle of the night and I'm still arguing. People who cannot accept they have lost an argument do my blood pressure no good at all. Dunno why I bother. Must be the beers!

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

Pretty shonky attitude there, Morgan.

Every single post of yours is full of personal comments like that.  Try sticking to the subject and not attacking people but dealing exclusively with what the people say.  Don't refer to me, refer to what I am saying.  This will only cramp your style if you don't have a solid line of reasoning in the first place and therefore rely on abuse and ad hominem.  But if you do actually have something logical and reasoned to say then it will not cramp your posts at all.  Try it.

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

Nothing I've said is wrong, or a straw man argument.

I gave the precise details of your straw man argument, and it's not a matter of dispute because it was in your own words in black and white.  If you try to knock down an argument by adding a premise of your own that was not given and knocking down this new premise then that is the exact definition of a straw man argument.  It isn't a logical counter to what was said, but only a logical counter to the premise which you invented.  Don't do it.

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

For example, my statement "fabless companies in this area are not in the game of making stuff in advance and storing it just in case" is completely true and contains no straw shaped man.

I've gone over this before, but to help you along, I'll repeat what I already said.  The "just in case" was not what I suggested.  I very clearly suggested that they could work with Eben Upton and everyone else concerned to ensure that there was no risk by virtue of fabricating only enough parts to cover existing solid order backlogs.

If you put "just in case" in your counter then you are countering with a straw man argument.  It does not matter that the statement you are making is true when expressed without reference to a previous argument (in that case you would just be making a hypothesis yourself and debunking it).  When used in a counter to someone else's argument then it becomes a straw man because it does not deal with that person's argument but only with the premise you introduced yourself, and yet attributes the "success" in debunking it to the failure of the other person's argument when it is only a failure of your invented argument.  It exactly matches the fallacy type.  Don't do it.

Jonathan Garrish wrote:

 

From a manufacturing point of view I have to concur that it makes little sense for a manufacturer (especially one with no actual manufacturing capability) to push an obsolete, low profit item to the head of a carefully planned queue.

I agree with that, but once the game has started, we are where we are and it has to run its course.

When Eben was designing the Pi, issues of whether Broadcom would be interested in longevity of the BCM2835 should have been discussed.  Perhaps a chip in which they have more interest would have been a better choice.

It's a bit late to talk about that now though.  We are where we are, and Broadcom is lumbered with continued fabrication of an old SoC.  If they're unhappy about that then the best thing they could do is to get these blasted preorders out of the way by accellerating BCM2835 manufacture and at the same time work in concert with Eben to design the next version of Pi around a more modern SoC.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

RPF has said clear as daylight that every Model A that could be produced would result in one less Model B being produced.

But nearly every Model A produced and sold is a Model B that would not be needed instead.

I think it is clear the reason As have not been made is that the distributors are not enthusiastic about them. 

Why make the even cheaper device and risk being left with waste stock of 9512s.

They have been very careful never even to gauge demand for the Model A so they can cling to the "too many people still ordering Bs" excuse.

jopaji wrote:

 

But nearly every Model A produced and sold is a Model B that would not be needed instead.

 

I think it is clear the reason As have not been made is that the distributors are not enthusiastic about them. 

That's a pretty good point you make.  Even if one were to dispute the "nearly every" part, it's certainly the case that a proportion of Model A sales will replace Model B sales, so it's not plain sailing for the distributors.

Yes, I can see the disincentive for them.

[Addendum:  That said, the margin on Model A might be a bit higher, which would make them happier.  Perhaps we can estimate that.]

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

Billy:  Look up "argument from authority" and "logical fallacy".

 

Then come back to us with solid reasoning instead of your repeated "It's like this because I'm experienced and I say so."  It's not convincing in an engineering forum.  If you're truly experienced then it should be easy for you to provide a reasoned argument rather than your standard line.

 

mynameisJim and I have exchanged reasoned arguments without name-calling nor arguing from authority.  We may not agree but it's a logical exchange of views.  Try it, it will stand you in good stead.

 

Your last paragraph might even have qualified as logical if you hadn't incorporated another logical fallacy, a simple straw man.  "fabless companies in this area are not in the game of making stuff in advance and storing it just in case" is the straw man because it's not "just in case", it's to fulfil the solid and well-known back-orders for Pi held by the manufacturing partners.  I stated that plainly in the preceding post to which you were replying, so you're countering a premise that was never made.

First off I agree with Mogaine, there is no need for name calling.  Secondly, "argument from authority" (from wikipedia)

The strength of the [argument from authority] depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus: ^[2]

X holds that A is true.

X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.

The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.

Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

Fallacious appeal to authority

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#cite_note-salmon-1}

(end of Wikipedia quote)

Now there is a consensus on this matter between two legit experts on the subject matter (plus Garry and Jonathan but they have not stated their experience in the matter so I didn't count them), and persons X are holding that A are true, therefore the breakdown must resolve around the belief that X is a legitimate expert on the matter which I freely admit that I cannot prove my expertise in the matter (or anyone else for that matter) any more than you can prove you are a mid-aged black haired woman named Morgaine.

The fallacy around appeals to authority revolves not around multiple experts being wrong (though it can happen, it becomes increasingly unlikely) nor around "I can ignore anything said by someone claiming to be an expert because their expertise doesn't count", but around giving added weight to experts on things they shouldn't be given extra authority on (such as giving extra weight to an airlines pilot claim of seeing a UFO because they're trained observers of the sky.

Now I admit, I'm not much of a philosopher and if you want to take this argument into the realm of philosophy of possibilities rather than realities of engineering (like arguing that a resistor won't behave in manner X despite never having done anything with resistors and stating all my years of working with resistors is wrong because it goes against how you think the ideal world scenario of resistors should operate) then I'm going to loose, hands down.  But it seems to me that the basis for your argument has some fallacies of its own.  "Association resulting in causation", "Ad ignorantiam", (side note a straw man argument is attacking a side issue to hide the fact that you're wrong about the main issue), and while I don't know the proper term for it, an unsound premise (namely, B-com wants to keep the BCM2835 in constant production despite the fact that all the sales for the raspberry pi don't amount to 1/1000th of their quarterly earnings)

The Association resulting in causation is Eben working for B-com will result in B-com producing more units (which is a double fallacy because it also implies that Eben can somehow know how much demand is upcoming for the pi, when it's been stated from Liz that they have to wait to hear from the distributors just to find out how many have been sold a month ago.)

The Ad ignorantiam is the repeated phrase "it's all speculation" with the rest of the post going on to say therefore I'm right. (This is also a double fallacy because it attempts to equate your speculation about how our fields of expertise work with our knowledge of how our fields work and nullify both as meaningless, indeed it actually tries to trump expertise with strong opinion).

I'll throw in one last one and that's the fallacy fallacy (you might want to google it).  Where you say the "just in case" is a straw man (which doesn't really fit the mold of attacking a weak position to hide the fact you can't attack the main one)

Finally, and I don't know the name for this one either, but there is a fallacy where you try to claim that an engineering forum doesn't care about experience.  That's all an engineering forum cares about.  If I have problems with a circuit I don't want some wet behind the ears kid with a head full of text book answers from circuits 101 trying to tell me how the part of the circuit I've tested could never operate because of thing "x". I want someone with lots of real world experience to say "oh yeah, I've been here"

*whew* that post took forever, I'm really no good at this philosophy crap!  lol.  I don't know what else to tell you Morgaine (This might be ad hominem), but if you want to dig your heels in and shout that your opinions trump my experience.  I don't think there's anything I can do about that.  I've worked with enough children to know that's a battle lost when you first step foot on the battlefield!  I just wish you'd stop pushing these opinions of your as such strong facts, not only for the sake of people who are equally unaware and believe you, but also for your own sake and image with people who do know better. 

With that I've said all I can say about the matter and I promise you can have the last word and prove how you're right about all this and I won't say anything back

> despite the fact that all the sales for the raspberry pi don't amount to 1/1000th of their quarterly earnings

you would do well to look up the definition of "earnings"

When quotes from Wikipedia (which isn't in itself the most authoritative of sources) start getting bandied about then surely it demonstrates that the thread needs either some tlc or a whack over the head with a shovel. Lectures about "logical fallacies", "arguments from authorities" and other meta-argument piffle are just hot air filling the vacuum formed by a lack of proper discussion and posturing by people who just have to win, even when there's no criterion for "victory" and no prizes either...

Jesus, somebody will be invoking Godwin next - and likely providing a Wikipedia link to more self-indulgent and / or plagiarised guff.

C'mon folks, stop baiting each other, calm down a bit and try to stick to interpreting the facts and numbers. It is Friday, after all.

When quotes from Wikipedia (which isn't in itself the most authoritative of sources) start getting bandied about then surely it demonstrates that the thread needs either some tlc or a whack over the head with a shovel. Lectures about "logical fallacies", "arguments from authorities" and other meta-argument piffle are just hot air filling the vacuum formed by a lack of proper discussion and posturing by people who just have to win, even when there's no criterion for "victory" and no prizes either...

Jesus, somebody will be invoking Godwin next - and likely providing a Wikipedia link to more self-indulgent and / or plagiarised guff.

C'mon folks, stop baiting each other, calm down a bit and try to stick to interpreting the facts and numbers. It is Friday, after all.

Jonathan Garrish wrote:

 

C'mon folks, stop baiting each other, calm down a bit and try to stick to interpreting the facts and numbers. It is Friday, after all.

That's well said (even if it weren't Friday), but careful what you ask for.  If you let people "interpret the facts" not using logic but with universally known forms of illogic then the results of "interpreting the facts" will be hogwash.

Fortunately this is an engineering forum and because of our engineering, scientific and technical backgrounds, pretty much everybody uses very good logic here, simply because it comes natural to us.  After all, if we didn't reason properly then the products we engineer probably wouldn't work.  So, thinking and arguing logically is totally second nature in this community, and it's rare that a red flag has to be raised because logical discussions are being derailed by flawed forms that are more common in political debating than in technology.

Anyway, I've just got back in and only had time to briefly scan mynameisJim's post, but it looks good and deserves a reply.  Rest assured that baiting isn't happening on my part, and I don't see any in mynameisJim's posts either.  We're having a good (and very logical) discussion, and it's not really about philosophy at all, but about Broadcom and how their BCM2835 manufacturing might be affected by their relationship with RPF.  The short detour into logic won't last long because there's almost nothing to discuss there since the subject is very well known.

'Hope you're having or had a good Friday night out, or at least by the fire.

Morgaine.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

Jonathan Garrish wrote:

 

C'mon folks, stop baiting each other, calm down a bit and try to stick to interpreting the facts and numbers. It is Friday, after all.

 

That's well said (even if it weren't Friday), but careful what you ask for.  If you let people "interpret the facts" not using logic but with universally known forms of illogic then the results of "interpreting the facts" will be hogwash.

 

Fortunately this is an engineering forum and because of our engineering, scientific and technical backgrounds, pretty much everybody uses very good logic here, simply because it comes natural to us.  After all, if we didn't reason properly then the products we engineer probably wouldn't work.  So, thinking and arguing logically is totally second nature in this community, and it's rare that a red flag has to be raised because logical discussions are being derailed by flawed forms that are more common in political debating than in technology.

 

Anyway, I've just got back in and only had time to briefly scan mynameisJim's post, but it looks good and deserves a reply.  Rest assured that baiting isn't happening on my part, and I don't see any in mynameisJim's posts either.  We're having a good (and very logical) discussion, and it's not really about philosophy at all, but about Broadcom and how their BCM2835 manufacturing might be affected by their relationship with RPF.  The short detour into logic won't last long because there's almost nothing to discuss there since the subject is very well known.

 

'Hope you're having or had a good Friday night out, or at least by the fire.

 

Morgaine.

You know you can just call me Jim, it is my name lol!  Also, I was looking at my post again, and at the very end I realized that my statement could be misinterpreted.  I don't mean to imply you're acting childish nor that you're the only one digging in their heels, but merely trying to illustrate the pointlessness of my continuing to debate the matter, sorry for any offense the statement may have caused.

mynameisJim wrote:

 

You know you can just call me Jim, it is my name lol!

Jim: It's generally an error to infer anything from a username, but of course I will if that's good with you.  Signing off as "Jim" would of course tell people immediately how you'd like to be called.

Also, I was looking at my post again, and at the very end I realized that my statement could be misinterpreted.  I don't mean to imply you're acting childish nor that you're the only one digging in their heels, but merely trying to illustrate the pointlessness of my continuing to debate the matter, sorry for any offense the statement may have caused.

I still haven't had the opportunity to examine it in depth, but I will later today.  If it does imply any such thing then not only is it wrong, but blatantly wrong.  My exchange with you is being done as professionally (in the sense of engineering and academic professions) and as accurately as I can, and if there is anything you write that I dispute then I've simply been pointing it out, with clear reasons given, as precisely as I can.  The fact that I find some of your conclusions erroneous in the context we're discussing is hardly a faux pas (they may still be accurate in a different context).  It just means that we are arguing slightly different points, or based on different premises, and therefore partly "arguing past" each other.

Anyway, that's getting very "meta", so let me save my energies for answering your long post later on.

Morgaine.