You're saying, now, that it is statistically relevant.
And it's not. Because from the data I've looked at, 10% is a vastly high number. You can't make numbers up and call them statistically relevant. And you can't disregard the fact that 3 out of 4 could just as easily be the statistical anomaly.
However, the other comment I've made still stands. Can we all drop it? Nobody cares, nobody will prove anything either way. I like the MacBook Pro, love it, think it's the best machine I've ever used. You, Matt, don't. Neither of our opinions matter to the other person, and this entire thread was started pointlessly and seemingly with intent to inflame. Let's drop it and go argue our operating system of choice somewhere that invites actual DISCUSSION.
Re:The Macbook "Brick"
by mattmaroon on Monday October 06, 2008 @07:54PM
(#325467)
No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying a small sample of failures (assuming failures are significantly less likely than non) gives you more information than a large sample of non.
Statistics take into account any valid ways of getting more information. And they also take into account what we know about how to avoid making crap up. You need to either claim to have a statistically relevant amount of information, or to know nothing about overall failure rates of apple laptops.
A sample of which 3 out of 4 failed would be much more rare. Thus you can glean more information from a sample of 3/4 failures than a sample of 10 with no failures.
I don't remember my combinations well enough to figure out the exact numbers, so I may be a bit off, but you see what I'm saying.