Absurdity of it is subjective, but it being consistent with the evidence is not. It's highly unlikely, but it's certainly more likely than explanations that have zero likelihood. In the past the government has put forth explanations of events that are patently false (read: lied) and never re-examined, so the extraterrestrial hypothesis is more likely than their explanations in those cases.
Edit: To be honest, I'm surprised the extraterrestrial hypothesis is considered so absurd by scientifically minded people. Clearly it's absurd to assume that we're the only 'advanced' civilization in the universe, the place where it's a grey area is if a much more advanced civilization would have the means or the interest to visit our planet, and if they did, if the phenomenon of UFOs jives with what we'd expect to see if they did. This is up for debate, obviously, but I am not sure why logic doesn't dictate that the odds are reasonable that such a scenario could exist. Fermi's paradox makes you wonder.
The problem with any hypothesis that involves Earth being visited by extraterrestrials isn't the almost unthinkably large distances involved, it's the timescales involved.
For any two given planets in the galaxy that could support intelligent life, in all likelihood the technological progress of those lifeforms will not align, and it won't be close. Imagine one civilization encountering another, except the first is 50,000 years more technologically advanced. Or 500,000 years. Or 5 million years. What would happen?
The more advanced civilization wouldn't be playing games to keep from being discovered, that's for sure. They wouldn't care. Even visiting the planet would be a total waste of time since with that level of technology they could certainly observe from afar.
I don't think you can dismiss the possibility of an as-yet-undiscovered end-run around these limits. The problem with a critique of a hypothetically more technologically advanced civilization than our own which is based on modern understandings of physics is problematic at best.
There are larger problems with the ET hypothesis, though, and that is why generally, descriptions of beings associated with lights in the sky, although also often associated with knowledge of new technology and with kidnapping, are described in physical details differently by different cultures. Even in somewhere as narrow 10th century Europe, you have at least three different, if you will, species of entity associated with this sort of thing.
So this leaves the ET hypothesis with two bad choices, which are either we are more observant than our ancestors which is patently false, or else there is some intersteller convention somewhere which divvies up cultures for observation and follows them as they move around, and stops when the culture changes sufficiently. That starts to sound very implausible.
What about: a scientific expedition to earth is expensive, so when it arrives here, the ship takes shore for a while, sends scouts, gathers data, and then moves on until another one arrives, possibly from another planet? Is it so far-fetched?
Also, things are always described in a sociological context. What we would call "automobiles" would have been called "chariots of fire" by our elders.
You still have near-exact boundaries between culture and portrayal of the entities involved. If you are in Continental Europe in the 8th Century, these are demons or even Satan himself. If you are in Sweden at the same time, it's the dwarves and they are the best metalworkers in the 9 worlds. Folk religion in England at the time still talked about elfs being associated with this sort of thing, and folk religion in Ireland was different yet.
I don't think you can have regional stability and such variation between regions with that hypothesis. I think an anthropological one makes more sense.
Making hypothetical statments about the motivations of an alien mind that may be millions of years ahead of us, and then using the implausibility of it as an argument to dismiss any contrary evidence, is the weakest argument against this phenomenon. But it is always repeated in every single discussion about this topic by someone!
An interview with Stephen Hawking was recently posted to HN. In the interview he states that UFOs are only witnessed by crackpots and that the laws of the universe prevent interstellar travel.
The "crackpot" statement aside, I think it's incredibly disturbing that a scientist of his stature makes absolute predictions like we'll never travel to another star. I believe he is pretty good at his job, but saying something is impossible -- based on our current understanding of physics -- seems silly. No one in the physics community could say that our understanding of the universe is complete. The most prevalent theme in physics today is still the incompleteness of our understanding. We can't reconcile our understanding of the largest things in the universe with our understanding of the smallest. Although we can measure gravity, predict and observe its effects, we have no consistent explanation for it.
I'd say that thousands of years of fiction (speculative or otherwise) remain largely unaffected by hundreds of years of physics. Our understanding of the universe is still in its infancy.
We also have a history of having our deepest beliefs overturned by progress. Why would the beliefs of the late 20th century be any different?
[Edited for language use]
[Edit]
He dismissed the idea of time travel in that article, not interstellar travel. My criticism still applies.
It won't be the first of the last time, that a famous scientist has made a statement or prediction that proved to be false. At the close of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin the most reputed scientist of that era, boldly stated, "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible". This was in 1895, just 10 years prior to the Wright brothers proving him dead wrong. Those who advance the "seems impossble so it cannot be true" argument, need to remember this and all previously considered impossible stuff that became possible. These include airplanes, meteorites (yes, once considered impossible by scientists), analysing stars, existence of black holes, nuclear energy, space flight, and teleportation using quantum entaglement....
'by using "matter/antimatter annihilation," velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years.
"It wouldn't seem so long for those on board," [Hawking] said.'
I find the crackpot statement a bit problematic too. Basically he is suggesting that if you witness a UFO, you are a crackpot. I don't see any reason to think that. Indeed I have seen plenty of things I can't account for scientifically (no UFO's though), and I have had outright hallucinations induced by mystical experiences and meditation (those are terrifying believe it or not).
BTW, I don't accept the extraterrestrial explanation. I think when you look even over the last 50 years, descriptions and portrayals of UFO's have evolved with the times, and phenomena which are generally comparable in the outlines go way back, but are very culturally dependent.
The problem with the extraterrestrial hypothesis is actually remarkably simple and that is that one has to account why non-human entities which are reported to kidnap people, and have advanced technology, and are associated with lights in the sky, are so fundamentally culturally portrayed? Is it reasonable to think, really, that there is some great ET convention where they divvy up our cultures and follow them? That doesn't sound reasonable to me. I think it is more likely that there are multiple components to the sightings, some of which we may not know what they represent yet, and some of which may be our projection and making sense of what we see.
Just because it is seems unreasonable to you in human terms, is precisely why it may be perfectly reasonable to (what you admit) to be non-human entities! And just because it is unreasonale or implausible to you or anyone else does not mean it is not real or not happening. Quantum physics seems very implausible to me but that has no bearing on it being true.
I'm not familiar with Hawking saying we'll never travel to a star (well hopefully not in a star). I doubt he said that. We could build a space ark and travel for about 50,000 years and hit proxima centauri, no big deal. :)
but yeah, most are either crackpots or reasonable but naive people.
Since when are ad-hom's acceptable responses on HN? I never said I was sure such things were true, but like most true hackers, I'm curious and want to know more when things seem like they don't make sense. You're not very well read if you think UFOs are an open and shut case for all people who don't "need to see a psychologist."
Since at least 1303 days ago (for gfodor). Not that that's important, but just to dispel the "HN is declining" people. Your ad hominem response/insult is actually the kind of thing that could bring about HN's decline honestly.
I found gfodor's comments to be reasonable, though I have no idea if they're backed by real evidence. I wouldn't jump to conclusions myself unless I had more thoroughly looked at it.
Yes, sadly most people who dismiss UFOs, have not viewed or read - let alone examined the mountain of data and evidence that exist. Yes, evidence does exist - often as multiple cross-referenced radar readings, abnormal radiation levels, and even physical traces where UFOs have been observed. The true skeptic would not dismiss this out of hand, without some actual personal investigation into the subject.
Where are the aliens? There's apparently so many of them that there's "mountains" of data yet no definitive proof. Why is this the only sort of thing on history for which we have "mountains" of data but no definitive proof? I mean, come on.
While it does sound absurd, it should not be ruled out. Absurdity is a frame of reference and relative to our own knowledge and advancement. So a jumbo jet or even an LCD TV would seem absurd to someone living as recently as 200 years ago. So what could a species that is millions of years ahead of us, do is hard to fathom, let alone put limits on. The funny thing is most scientists on the one hand do accept that the universe must be teeming with life. What they just cannot accept is that it maybe be visiting planet earth. Why not? The standard argument is that the speed of light places limits on how far one can travel, the nearest star being 4 light years, it would take thousands or millions of years to travel the distance (the FTL argument). And yet the very same scientists, advance theories of wormholes, 10-dimemsional space-time, alternate universes that may exist right next to us. All of which may be harnessed by a species millions of years ahead of us to permit them to jump across space-time or even dimensions.
No, your "mind of God" argument just don't work. Intelligence and understanding of intelligible motivation has not changed dramatically. Reading any ancient story, we see all the same motivations, humor etc as today. I don't think Homer or Plato would be unable to understand why we do things today. He may not know how a Mac works but he could guess at why it was built. This is not the case for aliens and EVIDENTALLY POINTLESS visitations. Ok, these crafts contradictory with FTL or 10 dimensional technologies. It doesn't make sense. They travel through 10 dimensions but don't land?? Or maybe you do believe in the MIB universe, where Chinese restaurants are filled with aliens (totally serious)?
That seems like an excellent trade-off to me, a prime example of how Apple is great at picking the right trade-offs.
All what you said is completely irrelevant for the vast majority of people. So Apple doesn’t trade it off against the increased convenience both Spotlight and Versions give you.
In real life people do think of pieces of paper as having different levels of security or privacy. Some pieces of paper you can leave out on the coffee table, others get locked in a desk, and still others in a safety-deposit box.
Also, as separate point, your use of the word "trade-off" assumes that there is no alternative other than giving the user some complex privacy-aware UI or complicated procedures.
It’s quite astonishing that so many people here prefer readability over correctness. What is wrong with you? Readability is optional. Correctness is not.
That’s obviously the wrong tradeoff. Never outright manipulate your data to make it more readable! If you can’t make your data readable enough without manipulating it you just can’t present your data that way. Period. Find a better way.
(I do not think there is any malice involved, though. Just pure stupidity. I mean, look at the amount of people around here arguing for readability over correctness. If they are out here, some are also working for Nielsen.)
There's more at stake than that -- malice or not, a simple, tidy diagram can bypass a human's critical faculties and increase the feeling that the false data (and whatever it's conclusion) are more true. For a statistical research organisation, this is straight up neglect!
Part of my job involves electrical drafting, and though I'm positively anal about my drawings, if I manipulate the design to make the drawing more clear and presentable, it's a snowball's chance I'd ever be excused.
In my case, the risk is starting a fire in a power supply; in theirs, manipulating the market death of a product, however many dollars that might entail. Professionals have higher standards in their field, precisely because we trust them with expert information and give more weight to their decisions. Stupidity is no excuse in this case.
How that? Android would be 183°, iOS would be 122°, RIM would be 32°. You could easily see that Android is slightly above 50% – but I’m not really sure how the iOS marketshare would look markedly different.
Since 50% isn’t really a very important threshold (though that could be argued) I would very much argue against using a pie chart. (I prefer areas or lengths to angles.) Plus, a pie chart wouldn’t make it easy to add platform subdivisions.
It's a log scale. The bottom axis should use tick marks to make it is obvious. A poorly marked log scale is certainly something to fix. It's not the same as fudging the data.
[edit: If you wish to say a log scale is inherently misleading in this context ... go for it. That's different then saying the data is manipulated.]
[Edit2: The area is not meaningful. The widths are meaningful if there is a total ordering and the scale is labeled. ... I do however agree I am probably way overestimating how obvious a [log(1+cumulative percentile),log(1)] mapped to the xaxis is. Also the chart does scream compare areas, and those are strictly meaningless unless comparing within the same OS.]
Can someone explain how a log scale could work for this sort of stacked graph? (Serious question, not rhetorical question.)
If the X axis is a log scale of market share, what would happen if Apple and Android both had 40% market share? Both bars would overlap.
If X is cumulative market share, the bar width would depend on order and the two hypothetical 40% companies would have different widths.
If each bar has area proportional to the log, how would that work? The logs of market share are negative unless there is an arbitrary constant in there. Also the vertical breakdown doesn't make any sense in that case, because the areas of the vertical blocks don't add up to the OS total. Also small market shares would have negative width?
So can someone explain how log scale could even theoretically work here?
At least since the appearance of data sets that lent themselves towards such visualization. For example, how better to compare the growth of various platforms, from TRS-80 days to the iPad while the entire industry grows exponentially?
The first is a "it's not a lie because we explain it in the small print" argument. Technically true but practically false.
The latter is just a bare assertion. Got proof? I'd bet not. Which is why you had to say "far, far", hoping that people would just go along with you.
Personally, I'd think that Nielsen's business is to make sure their customers know what's going on. That's not an argument for running the second graph; it's an argument for making a third graph that conveys the correct intuition. Or just to publish a table of numbers.
Personally, I'd think that Nielsen's business is to make sure their customers know what's going on.
In my experience, that is not the case. The information they provide is generally used by middle managers in large companies in internal powerpoint decks with the intent of waging intra-company warfare. The use of the the info is highly political and opinionated, not rational and academic.
So, yeah, it would be preferrable to put out an immaculate chart with perfect proportions, good design, and clear text. But often it's just easier to cram the words in and make it fit. The bottom line is that the intended target of these charts just does not care about these details. They have an agenda of their own, and will use the Nielsen data to advance it. For Nielsen to spend time and money obsessing over these sort of things woud go largely unappreciated.
Is it great? no. Even good? no. Does it meet their customers' standards and needs? Yes.
"For Nielsen to spend time and money obsessing over these sort of things woud go largely unappreciated."
This would be extremely short sighted thinking.
I'm a big beleiver in the art of not doing work that's unnecessary, but the art is in knowing when it matters. When not doing the work directly contradicts your brand's supposed strengths publically that's a problem.
Nielsen's brand is built upon a reputation of high quality and detailed demographic data. This is the basis on which customers buy data from Nielsen and what gives that hypothetical middle manger's powerpoint slide some weight. "This is from Nielsen so we can trust that it's good data not some up-and-to-the-right chart I tortured out of our data."
Events like this damage that brand. The damage may not manifest itself directly in sales up front but long term if the weight of "this is from nielson.." is gone then even in the cynical case where all the customers are clueless Nielsen will lose out to another data provider that has the right reputation.
Why is that bad? They look at a nice, easy to read but disproportionate chart, come up with an idea that helps advance their cause, and work it into their presentation. That is how it's done, and it does not require mathematical rigor or loose ethics.
This is apparently a very offensive line of reason here, judging by the downvotes I've acquired for pointing this out. I find that to be interesting in its own right.
I try to assume ignorance over malice which is why I characterized our hypothetical middle-managers as clueless rather than intentionally using misleading data in my prior comment.
If the case is that they know the data is incorrect/misleading but they use it anyway to advance a cause that sounds like the kind of internal politicking that cripples many larger businesses' ability to make good decisions. So IMO that's worse than just being clueless and I no don't think it's very ethical.
Now maybe you're saying that it's possible to get the right idea from a misleading chart and get some value from it. That's true, but it's also true that you can get the wrong idea from it and make a poor decision.
It's bad even for those customers who want a result, because they will be hoping that the reputation of the firm reprinting the data will cause others to neglect looking into the figures.
Look what happened here: if either RIM or Microsoft were relying on the data to be under-analysed (not saying they were - just an example!) then it would have blown up in their face fairly spectacularly. And Neilsen is a reputable firm!
Try looking up the Mindcraft Windows NT vs. Linux benchmarks also.
Note that you've gone from "far, far better for their customers' needs" to "just as good for their (pointless) purposes" but cheaper. Which is a much weaker argument.
I also think your "nobody cares about the data" argument is weak. But I suspect you know that already, and were just trying to argue your way out of a hole so I won't belabor it.
Having worked in newspapers creating graphics exactly like this, my editors would have made me publish a correction explaining this mistake. It was always my understanding that if I made a number of errors like this, I'd quickly find myself looking for a job.
A statistics and data-driven company like Nielsen should be ashamed, double so if they haven't published a correction.
Fashion can't be trademarked or copyrighted. You can slavishly copy a Chanel handbag if you don't also copy the logo. That's why many expensive brands use their logos in patterns on their handbags.
I would be interested in your source for that. Batteries are already made of very many different materials, it’s not as though glue is some sort of special material. (The label of, say, AAA batteries is glued to the metal container. The label of the Li-Ion battery of my Nokia phone is also glued to the plastic container. Maybe Apple uses a bit more glue – but glue shouldn’t be something completely new in battery recycling.)
I’m not sure, I think laptops have become longer lasting, more appliance like. I think that’s a very positive thing for the majority of people.
The only big issue I see is the battery which will definitely break. Those things have a limited lifetime (shorter than, say, five years you at least would want your laptop to make it) and there is nothing you can change about that.
I’m also not sure why you are worried about that. Not everything Steve did was gold. Some of the things he did were pretty toxic, and I think being unable to really admit you were wrong in public is one of those things.
If this is indeed a change in that direction (and I somewhat doubt it is) it is to me unquestionably a positive one.
I think many people misunderstand where the glue is in the Retina MacBook Pro. They say things like “The display is glued to the case.” which is wrong.
The display assembly (the actual screen where the lights shine true) is glued together. I’m not sure but I think that part of the display is always pretty tightly integrated, probably even glued together. (I tried to find information on that and I would be very glad if someone could point me to resources about how laptop displays are usually built.)
The difference with Apple’s design (as far as I understand it) is that the frontmost layer of that assembly is also the front glass of the screen. Other laptops with glass in front of the screen put an extra layer of glass in front of the display assembly. The Retina MacBook Pro doesn’t have that extra glass. (My understanding – but please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m really not sure and I would like to know more – is that old displays had a sort of plastic outer layer, now Apple uses a glass outer layer. But that’s not that a big deal, as far as I know, since on the inside all LCDs use glass substrate also – so it’s not as if Apple introduced glass into the display assembly, some was always there, they just added more. But maybe I’m wrong about that.)
That display assembly is screwed – not glued – to the case. Behind it are the LEDs and light diffusers.
The battery is glued to the case - but it seems to that it is eminently removable with the application of some force. If you don’t care about breaking the laptop (since you want to recycle it) that should be no big deal. I mean, Apple replaces the battery for $200, no questions asked. I don’t think they replace the whole Retina MacBook Pro every time they do that, so they must remove the glued-in battery, and that inside a working laptop. If Apple can do it, so can you (especially with a laptop that’s beyond repair).
> Apple replaces the battery for $200, no questions asked. I don’t think they replace the whole Retina MacBook Pro every time they do that, so they must remove the glued-in battery, and that inside a working laptop. If Apple can do it, so can you (especially with a laptop that’s beyond repair).
This is the best explanation I've seen. Somehow everyone has forgotten this.
I'm not sure if you comment is supposed to be sarcastic... ?
I don't see how replacing a transmission in a car is related to getting a glued-in battery out of a laptop for the purpose of recycling (the main discussion here) ?
(Not at all relevant to recycling, but $200 ain’t a bad price. You can expect to pay about $150 for batteries from other manufacturers, and those are often not as high-quality batteries. Batteries are expensive. In general, not just from Apple. It just sucks that you have to send your damn laptop in and not be able to access it for some time.
> I mean, Apple replaces the battery for $200, no questions asked. I don’t think they replace the whole Retina MacBook Pro every time they do that.
I'd like to point out that no one has had a RMBP serviced yet, so everything you've said is entirely speculation. As is the following:
They will replace the entire RMBP.
The only user customizable part is the data on the SSD. Why go to all the trouble of taking the laptop apart when Apple could just move the data and give you a new one? Much faster turn around time. (And fixes any other dings/dents. Yay Apple!) It will be interesting to see how they deal with unorthodox customization, such as stickers on the exterior of the case. Probably will separate those out and give them the special full service treatment.
After they ship you your new laptop, they will take apart the old one and unglue the battery - but only so the unit can be resold (as refurbished) as part of a student discount service.
They probably won't even take apart the laptop and swap the SSD - just dd the whole thing over their fast little thunderbolt port. In theory, they could offer battery replacements in the Apple Store - the sales rep just has to connect the two laptops, start the sync and wait 3.5 minutes. No skilled labor involved.
From a bottom line perspective, this makes too much sense not to happen. They'll be making money on every step of the process and the majority of customers will love it.
So you completely agree that it's possible to replace the battery in a working rMBP and that it is not in any way permanently affixed to the case? The rest are irrelevant (for the purpose of this discussion) implementation details.
The 'glue' in retina displays (based on my experience with the iphone 4's lcd) fuses the front glass to the LCD screen. Usually you can separate the protective glass and the LCD screen, but not on a retina display. That is why if you crack the glass in front of an iPhone 4's LCD, you have to replace the entire LCD (~$70) and not just the glass (~$10).
That’s what I tried to explain. There is one less protective layer in the Retina MacBook compared to other MacBooks – but the same amount of protective layers compared to matte MacBook Pros. I don’t think it makes a difference.
In the Retina MacBook Pro the glass is an integral part of the display, not some separate piece glued on just cause – as far as I understand it. If it weren’t there, there would be a piece of plastic glued to the display. (And since LCDs already contain glass elsewhere I don’t think the extra glass changes the equation much.)
Supposedly Apple replace the upper case, keyboard, touchpad and batteries as a single disposible unit. Cheaper than replacing the whole laptop but not terribly good for the environment.
They replace the top case (with keyboard) when they replace the battery, but I highly doubt they just bin the whole thing. They can send the part for refurbishing, remove the battery, and reuse the top case.
