Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Technology (Apple)

Journal pudge's Journal: Intel Prediction 10

Journal by pudge

A lot of people have asked me what I think of the Apple-Intel rumors.

I think nothing of it, for two reasons.

First, I generally disregard completely unsubstantiated rumors. And I mean that literally. Unless you can give me a good reason to believe it other than the fact that you believe it, and you say you have an unnamed source, I won't care. Put an actual name to it, or get substantiation some other way, if you want thoughtful people to care.

And no, having a "good track record" for previous rumors is not substantiation. That would be transubstantiation, and I am not Catholic.

Second, this rumor comes up all the time. I saw no reason to believe it before, and see no reason to believe it now.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Prediction More

Intel Prediction

Comments Filter:
  • Of course, people just repeating what they've heard is a rumour. But the source of the rumours are people making educated guesses like your prediction of the WA election court case, no?
    • I was making merely a guess about WA and said so. The stories regarding Intel were stated as fact, in no uncertain terms: "Steve Jobs will announce ... ," etc., but without giving us any reason to believe it.
      • I take that type of story to be based on a leak.
        • Yes, but a leak from whom? Someone with ulterior motives who might be lying? Someone who doesn't actually know? You can't evaluate the quality of the information without knowing who it actually is. What's more, without substantiation -- evidence beyond the "leak" that the information might be true -- you have no reason to even consider that it might be true.
          • It is very common (in fact, I think it happens most of the time) that when someone makes a newsworthy announcement like this (whether in business, government, whatever) that the media seem to know what is being announced about 12 to 24 hours in advance and start filing stories that say "[Name] will announce today..." without naming sources. I assume that they get the info direct from the source (e.g. Steve Jobs' office) with a tacit agreement that they won't point out that the event itself is just theatre a
            • It is very common (in fact, I think it happens most of the time) that when someone makes a newsworthy announcement like this (whether in business, government, whatever) that the media seem to know what is being announced about 12 to 24 hours in advance and start filing stories that say "[Name] will announce today..." without naming sources

              No, it's actually not. Usually, they say "according to Apple" or "Apple Computer said," etc., if it is an official announcement.

            • I assume that they get the info direct from the source

              Perhaps that assumption is not always warranted.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close