3rd and final installment to Jack’s reponse to Ed.
As to documentation the test results are posted there for Spec.org at the University of Minnesota and at the Riken Inst. in Japan. Just follow the links. I gave done the hard part for you. The University of Minnesota and the Riken Institute are a lot better qualified and more prestigeous than your on line tabloid press that doesn't follow scientific and engineering proceedures.
This is quite possibly the most disturbing post you have made to the forums yet…. I have seen no leg work here, I have seen no data ---- your conclusion:
Quote :
For total POS testing I give you this. I think that someone here at Toms is grossly overstating the case since no Woodcrest yet has been able to win more than 25% of the spec.org tests and none of the Himeno tests from the Riken Institute in Japan which are even more difficult.
This is a worthless statement without the data to back up your claim, the 25% sounds odd as it is contrary to all the available data to date. You provided no links to summary results, yet claim you did all the leg work. You did provide Spec.org --- what kind of crap is this … click on it:
All I see is the home page for Spec.org, I see no summary data that validates your claim that ‘no Woodcrest has won 25% of the Spec benches’. I see no effort here to provide the information to the forum that would drive this conclusion. This is almost offensive that you would ask intelligent people to believe such a claim, then to claim you did all the leg work and leave it at that.
I can only assume your reference to the Univ. of Minnesota has something to do with that, but you know, the WWW is kind of global, I don’t live in Minnesota so where ever you pulled this junk, whether it be U. of Minn. Or from TenBuckTwo, your claim is utterly bogus without supporting reference (peer reviewed or not) and such information must be accessible to the audience otherwise don’t make that statement.
Nonetheless, to expose the absurdity of such a claim, I did the ‘Hard Work’ myself, it is summarized (with the links) below:
Now, I am not sure what data you are looking at but using the exact web site you provided I see a 100% win for Woodcrest across the board on Spec2000. Unfortunately, there is a problem --- based on the data reported in your web site there is not a single verifiable configuration match to the level provided by Tom’s review on the DT side of the equation. So, ultimately, this data is not using any “Controls” at all, check it yourself…. Some have more memory, others use a different hard drive, yet others different MBs and some different operating systems (of the DTs) but this is what the search limited me to.
How on earth can you in one sentence complain that Patrick Schmidt used no controls when all he did was ensure appropriate configuration matching to every possible physical level, then turn around and link this crap and claim it is based on a scientific method.
i don't know if you're incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid. *no offense *
this whole thing must've taken you a long time to do eh? while you proved your point, your opponent might completely overlook the hard work you've done, the facts you just proved, and continue to spew out other worthless BS. in the end, this thread got locked out, and you probably achieved next to nothing.
however, you also demonstrated your patience, and intelligence by doing so. by any chance, casewhite might also seriously took a while to look at your post, which is beneficial both to him/herself, and to this forum.
i don't know. i just find spending a large amount of time finding resouces and making up spreadsheets just to prove your point is.. utterly pointless and time consuming. however, it might be the correct way to post on this forum.
3. My last job was making sure that materials given to the US Government were accurate and not manipulated in any form or fashion(fraud examiner).
....o..k...?
Do you find this as odd as I do.... my general impression is you cannot get more fraudulent than the US govt. ... to quote a move "you don't really think it costs $3000 for a hammer, $6000 for a toilet seat do ya' " He must have been busy
Cmon now Jack, it was only $300 for the hammer. For use in aircraft, a non-sparking molybdenum alloy :?: as I recall. All kinds of BS urban legends about that one.
Ed should know better by now than to challenge me on the facts because I will go out and find them if needed. I was also pretty harsh on him in the last post, but as he found it necessary to impune 8 years of living on peanut butter and crackers, I had to vent.
I hear you man. And I'll disagree with the whole line of thought about this being a waste of time on your part, etc. When one is young and enthusiastic, the dedication and commitment required to get through difficult degree work can almost seem fun. But it is a huge investment of energy and time. I thought Ed's comments challenging your education were a cheap troll.
I had a quick look round the site you pointed to and, oddly enough, could not find anything under the heading “if in doubt get personal” or along the lines of “a substitute for proper debate or peer review is to shout ne de de na na na at another commentator’s apparent qualifications”
Can you link to the body that provides for this approach please? As it apparently forms one of the foundations of your argument in this thread I assume it has been established as a workable premise by a reputable organisation.
i don't know if you're incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid. *no offense *
A little of both probably, it took me about 45 minutes to get the search terms to yield the necessary data, then another 45 minutes to search the results to get the configurations closest to a fair compare....
Data is data is data and it does not matter if you are smart, dumb, or a retired IEEE who did fraud claims for the US Govt.
Ed should know better by now than to challenge me on the facts because I will go out and find them if needed. I was also pretty harsh on him in the last post, but as he found it necessary to impune 8 years of living on peanut butter and crackers, I had to vent.
Jack
Holy s#$t.
owned, failed, *for ninja - quiznos mmm toasty bitch* and any other catch phrase would do no justice for what I read in your rebuttal. Wow.
I'll have to remember never to make Jack mad...never make Jack mad...
i don't know if you're incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid. *no offense *
A little of both probably, it took me about 45 minutes to get the search terms to yield the necessary data, then another 45 minutes to search the results to get the configurations closest to a fair compare....
Data is data is data and it does not matter if you are smart, dumb, or a retired IEEE who did fraud claims for the US Govt.
Ed should know better by now than to challenge me on the facts because I will go out and find them if needed. I was also pretty harsh on him in the last post, but as he found it necessary to impune 8 years of living on peanut butter and crackers, I had to vent.
Jack
im famous now coz of my fail catchphrase nmd: could you add quiznos mmm toasty bitch in it plz?
Holy s#$t.
owned, failed, and any other catch phrase would do no justice for what I read in your rebuttal. Wow.
I'll have to remember never to make Jack mad...never make Jack mad...
*
... to quote a move "you don't really think it costs $3000 for a hammer, $6000 for a toilet seat do ya' " He must have been busy 
it was only $300 for the hammer. For use in aircraft, a non-sparking molybdenum alloy :?: as I recall. All kinds of BS urban legends about that one.
nmd: could you add quiznos mmm toasty bitch in it plz?
