|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 21.10.2011 - 11:44 ]

> The "mental concept" I "attempted" to put into the word "when" is in fact what "when"
> in such sentence constructions means usually. It is what is listed in dictionaries such
> as the entry I referred you to

Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that I don't understand what the point that it has not been sold has to do with anything, as reviews do not depend on the reviewed device being sold or not.

> is pretty much what HenryCase described to you at #177

No. In #177 he said that he understood that I saw a logical contradiction in the phrase "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold". So it's obvious that in #177 not only didn't he understand that my question was about the kind of connection "when" creates between the part succeeding "when" and the part preceding "when" (and not only about the part succeeding "when" like he assumed), but also where it was that I saw the logical contradiction. In fact, what he tried to explain to me in #177 was the meaning of the "...not only [...], but..." construction contained in the part succeeding "when", which wasn't ever subject to any of my questions.

> whether or not you understood him

You may both be native English speakers but that doesn't mean you're immune from misunderstanding each other, as shown in #181.

> I meant the sentence as a complete sentence, and that it was misleading to slice it up

I don't think it's misleading. The part succeeding "when" is basically an enumeration of three points. It is *not* misleading to not refer to all enumeration points at once but only to some or even one single of them. It's also not misleading to refer to those points one by one.

> I don't believe you have ever quoted it completely

You're absolutely correct.

> would you mind doing so just once

No problem:

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold, and even its existence is in some doubt (except perhaps as a tenuously-connected Chinese unit that could be rebranded)."

> I will then make the attempt to explain to you in other words "what the point" is

I'm looking forward to it. And could you please rephrase the one statement from your previous posting I said I failed to get the meaning of?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 21.10.2011 - 11:43 ]

> we'd know the Cherrypad 2 had at least been released, so who cares if you
> misidentified the article as a review.

I guess the readers of the article who take that article for a review would care, especially as the article contains statements that make it sound like a genuine review.

> I'm *not* saying A) and B) *caused* the mistake. If I wanted to say that, I would have
> said "because." I *am* saying A) and B) absence makes it substantial.

You mean A) and B) absence *causes* it being substantial?

> I classed the release of photos and supposed specs of an unmarked and
> (presumably) Chinese unit, as a "tenuous connection."

...and you classed Cherrypal identifying the device as a "tenuous connection" in #165.

>> In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale
>> device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?

> pictures of a branded unit, an online video showing Max Seybold playing with it,
> pictures of the unit being unwrapped from a Cherrypal box, a picture of the
> device booting a Cherrypal logo with the screen showing

Thanks for addressing another one of my questions.

> this dispute also perhaps involved the basic statistical misunderstanding
> that a correlation of factors (or conditions) equals causation.

No, at least not from my side.

> I don't know if you've learned statistics.

I consider your example more like a matter of common sense (or basic set theory) than of statistics ;-)

> I do not intend [...] to address your other assertion that my silence on the article
> paragraph you cited means that I conclude the author pulled it from thin air.

You seem to miss that you already addressed this assertion by saying in #173 that I was wrong. Hence my question to you in #174, #176 and #194:
If my conclusion that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author is wrong then what do you believe how this part was written without access to a physical device as you say? Would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?
And the other ones which are still unaddressed:
Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?
Could you please rephrase the one statement from #199 which I said I failed to get the meaning of in #200?

> I've found when I answer two of your questions it leads to another five

Could you point me to those alleged 5 new questions that arose from you answering two of my older questions (as opposed to from dubious statements like this one)?

Update:

> Seems this "Linkbook" labelled LimeBook has been released to
> South Africa meanwhile.
>
> Press release:
> http://www.vodacom.com/news_article.php?articleID=593
>
> Website:
> http://www.linkbook.co.za

It looks like the Linkbook with MPC5121e got superseded by the Webbook with i.MX515.

http://www.vodacom.com/news_article.php?articleID=1068
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/19/vodafone-brings-arm-and-ubuntu-together-for-south-african-webboo/

Update:

> http://techniczone.com/cherrypal-cherrypad-america/

New article on the CherryPad America:
http://www.cashfortabletpcs.com/cft/news/article/checking_out_the_cherrypal_cherrypad_america_and_dell_inspiron_duo_tablet

Update:

> Marvell never had "strictly ARM cores" to offer. All their ARM cores to date have
> been own implementations of some licensed ARM ISA version, not actual cores
> licensed from ARM Ltd.

Chip with Cortex-A9 core announced in February 2011 (back then still hiding that fact by only touting it as "ARMv7", making everybody believe it would have Marvell's own Sheeva PJ4 core):
http://www.marvell.com/company/news/pressDetail.do?releaseID=1519
http://www.marvell.com/communication-processors/pxa978/

Chips with Cortex-M3 core announced in January 2012:
http://www.marvell.com/company/news/pressDetail.do?releaseID=2003
http://www.marvell.com/company/news/pressDetail.do?releaseID=2001
http://www.marvell.com/wireless/88MZ100/
http://www.marvell.com/green-technology/smart-energy/88MC200/

Chips with Cortex-A9 cores announced in August 2012:
http://www.marvell.com/company/news/pressDetail.do?releaseID=2616
http://www.marvell.com/communication-processors/pxa986/
http://www.marvell.com/communication-processors/pxa988/

Analysts say that the move to using ARM Ltd's Cortex-A9 core over their own Sheeva PJ4B core is due to pleasing Marvell's Android customers, as more and more Android software is using ARM Ltd's NEON SIMD whereas Marvell's own cores implement WMMX SIMD, which is not compatible with NEON.
In contrast to that explanation, Marvell does offer SoCs which couple their Sheeva PJ4B core with NEON:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7675&forum=3&start=211