Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Submission Steve Wozniak "Steve Jobs played no role in my designs for the Apple I & II"->

mikejuk writes: In a recent interview with very lucky 14-year old Sarina Khemchandani for her website, ReachAStudent, Steve Wozniak was more than precise about the role of Steve Jobs.
"Steve Jobs played no role at all in any of my designs of the Apple I and Apple II computer and printer interfaces and serial interfaces and floppy disks and stuff that I made to enhance the computers. He did not know technology. He’d never designed anything as a hardware engineer, and he didn’t know software. He wanted to be important, and the important people are always the business people. So that’s what he wanted to do.
The Apple II computer, by the way, was the only successful product Apple had for its first 10 years, and it was all done, for my own reasons for myself, before Steve Jobs even knew it existed."
He also says a lot of interesting things in the three ten minute videos about life, electronics and education.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Science? (Score 1) 455

You wish to test the hypothesis that blue stars are rich in helium. You take a sample of 10000 stars chosen at random and throw out all the non-blue ones, giving you 1000 blue stars. You take another sample of 10000 stars chosen at random in the same way as the first - they are the control group. You measure the helium abundances by observing the spectra of both groups of stars using identical procedures.

Congratulations, you have carried out a controlled experiment in astronomy.

Is there anything experimental in this? Randomization alone doesn't make an experiment, and
the study you describe seems exactly analogous to observational studies in the social sciences.

You wish to test the hypothesis that white Americans have received more formal education than
Americans in general. You take a random sample of Americans and calculate the mean level of
education of the whites. You take a second random sample and calculate overall mean
education of that second sample. You test for significant differences between your two means,
e.g., with a t-test.

Congratulations: you have an observational study. It's hardly an experiment: you've
manipulated nothing and controlled nothing. It may have descriptive validity -- it may let you
know that whites are better-educated -- but there's no manipulation here, and the study isn't
much use if you want to make causal claims about education levels.

You take another sample of 10000 stars chosen at random in the same way as the first -- they are the control group.

In what sense is this a control group? Nothing is manipulated in this study -- there is no
difference between your "control" and "treatment" samples, certainly none that you impose.
This doesn't even qualify as a "natural experiment."


All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- Ernest Rutherford