Though not specifically stated but defined by the context of the text was my intention to semantically contain the extension of my propositions to the set of consumer and prosumer computer fields. That is why I limited my examples accordingly. Without warrant you enlarged the scope of the conversation simply so that you may argue yet another point. I only enlarged the scope for purposes of analogy.
If you would read carefully a statement such as "Benchmarks do not elucidate any fact" you would have seen that it was stated to mean simply that the graphing of numbers alone (such as a Q3 f/s or lame encode value in seconds) does not have any measure of significant value. 1. A proper computer benchmark article/paper should give a lucid explanation of the lower level cause of the values. The attempt to explain causality I believe is the root of any scientific enterprise. 2. A benchmark should also orient itself towards the subjectivity of the potential user. If it is a benchmark concerning time, then the question of the potential perception of that time should also be the focus and not simply the time or f/s value out of context. 3. A product is always being benchmarked. The reviewer should always see if a product makes economic sense answering questions concerning decision theory like, who needs a Gallatin core based system? 4. The websites and magazines should behave like real journalists and scientists. A benchmark article should link or reference other benchmark values from other articles. The reviewer should also reference experts and receive comments by experts.
I was not in any way relating my use of the term 'benchmark' to fields such as the measurement of the conversion efficiency of solar cells. The term 'benchmark' corresponds to computer benchmark sites that test such limited things as, winbench, cpu temperature in relation to heatsink, asio latency, etc.
It is my belief that large part there are no quality computer review sites/magazines that have good benchmarks. Anandtech and Hardocp are moderate in quality for standard computer hardware. Anandtech tries to explain the technology. Hardocp has good editorial that does not overvalue hardware like Tom's does. You cannot find any good benchmarks on any good professional audio cards or digital video equipment.
Subjective crap. You have experienced every car and alarm clock that has ever existed and then based on your opinion of them, proclaimed that there are no good ones because you don't think they're good.
Subjective versus objective? Subjective as in relative? Subjective as in imminent? Subject as in unverifiable?
I'm not using pure induction am I? I am using adduction. I stand behind the belief that consumer products are engineered in the worst possible manner. This is done for various reasons but mainly because of market segmentation (SCSI, EIDE) and planned obsolesce. It is an "objective" fact that a simple thing such as an alarm clock is horribly engineered. Here are 4 good engineering changes that would create a better alarm clock. 1. What is the percentage of alarm clocks with a capacitor backup? Almost all alarm clocks are completely battery dependent for backup. 2. How many alarm clocks are as easy to set as an older VCR? It takes 5 seconds to set the time and date on an older VCR (buttons with hour, minute +, -.) I have used alarm clocks that have taken upwards of 3 minutes to set, because they only had an increase value button that affected the minutes. 3. Alarm clocks most frequently use the perceptually brightest color, green. Why do we need an alarm clock that functions as a night light? 4. How many alarm clocks have settable sleep buttons? Why can we only sleep in for another 7, 9, or 11 minutes? Why is the alarm reset button so near to the repeat alarm button?
How do you know that the NSA is only supporting Linux so that you will suspect them of malicious intent and therefore making it more likely that you will use FreeBSD which the NSA actually has critical exploits for.
You've fallen right into their trap.
You've fell victim for one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this never go in against a Sicilian when (FreeBSD) death is on the line.
After writing all that I thought of the clearest possible manner to elucidate my point unless you attempt to obfuscate by simple obvious points that are meant to function as counter arguments.
1. A benchmark has to be proved meaningful, that is prima facie has to be proven. In other words, the reviewer has to use a benchmark where the difference in units is a significant value.
A drop of 100 fps to x fps is significant for CS. What is that minimum value of x. If all future cards are greater than x, then that benchmark is not significant.
Analogy: Is a consumer cars maximum speed (miles/hour) a meaningful unit? No because all cars produced can go over 70mph. Mpg is a meaningful unit. Total cost of ownership is a meaningful unit. There reason body design (SUV, sports car) and maximum speed of cars are taken to be significant units is because people can be socially engineered on an ideological and psychological level to purchase cars based upon those signifiers. Signifiers do not correspond to an ideal world of truth, but to marked units that are meant to affect/construct decisions. Those are not real world benchmarks but synthetic potential decisions.
2. The review ought to explain the cause of the differences of benchmark values through a full explanation of the lower level structure.
3. Companies depend on signifiers to sell products. Companies use insignificant benchmark values to sell products. Companies focus on specific benchmark values (3dmark) instead of developing meaningful units of quality measurement. Case in point the GeForce 5200 was created to be an entry level dx9 compatible card. Nvidia simply cared about these signifiers in creating the card dx9 and RAM amount when creating this card. This card should never have been made. The 5700 should have been the entry level dx9 card, while Nvidia kept its Geforce4 mx line at 32 mb to 64 mb of ram.
Your counterpoints are rhetorical. Your rhetoric lacked any empirical counterpoints. Give examples of benchmarks. Link a good case of benchmarking. Find a good benchmark. You are simply covering through weak counter argument some of the points that I was trying to uncover. You can't find good practices of benchmarking because there are problems in the foundations of the ideological and engineering in the tech industry. Why? Because technology is simply business.
There are barely any good consumer products produced by engineers. There are no good cars, no easily adaptive alarm clocks, etc. It's because the information concerning the production of products is private, and because there is no meaningful observation of the use of products. Visual Studio.NET 2003 would not look like it does if Microsoft ever spent time meaningfully watching people use the program. There is only the deep-rooted creation of unauthentic demand for badly designed products. For example Microsoft created a horrible install for Windows 2k and XP. It spends 5 minutes installing SCSI drivers. The installation should ask if you are running a SCSI device before loading the drivers. It then necessitates user input on what should be a user free situation. It should ask for a computer and user name at the beginning of the install and bypass the networking and time zone features in the install.
Benchmarks are units that are marked and interpreted as meaningful. You cannot separate the benchmark, the procedure, and structure of the hardware and software processes. The benchmark value and the procedure ideally elucidate the structure of the hardware and the procedure.
The fact that benchmarks are horrible marketing tools is an empirical fact. Benchmarks create an inauthentic desire for a horrible product. Prove that benchmarks do not quantify a misleading unit that represents measure of development. ( LAME encoding is not a meaningful unit of measurement for the differences between a Pentium and an Athlon (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1LDI=) )
The fact that all hardware and software products are horribly produced is an empirical fact.
Here are some really (not very) good products: software raid, all computer speakers, Nvidia 5200 chips without zcompression, 128mb ram entry level graphics cards, the PIV under 2ghz.
The best audio cards RME, Digidesign, Creamwear, MOTU are simply cheap dsps, A/D D/A units, and minimal amounts of cheap ram (how much does ram cost again?) How much do these professional systems cost? How often does Digidesign force upgrades?
A quest: find a systematic review of a top of the line audio card or analog/dv encoding card/system and the relevant software. It does not exist.
Find a systematic review of various computer systems performance in Solid Works or Maya and the profitability and quality improvement of the various upgrade paths. It does not exist.
With current hardware why would we ever need performance reviews of business software?
All top of the line video cards drop by a value of 1/2 within roughly 6 months of their initial time of sale. People buy the top of the line cards not for performance reasons, but for purely social reasons. This neurosis does allow for a convenient business model that keeps the graphics hardware development steady, unlike audio hardware development.
Benchmarking as a science is not developed. If you are doing time tests you have to perceptions tests and so on.
There are no intelligent consumers. Go buy a new Suburban and spend $120 on some new kicks made by little children.
Here is a working link
http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/index.php?c Path=22&osCsid=c755fe8bd3e6a4dd0010ebe4915ddf5 3
and just in case the link goes down
http://www.performance-pcs.com/
Sleeves are the only way to go, especially with windows.
Benchmarks are meant to ideally test minimal pairs, the video encoding time difference between a p4 3.2 @266fsb and a p4 3.466 @266fsb doing. But in benchmarking scientific rigor is always lost, and this turns benchmarks into a rhetorical tool
But the benchmark choice is frequently meaningless or misleading.
Benchmarks do not elucidate any fact. You will always see in CPU tests LAME encoding. The p4 will always win against an Athlon. The reviewer will not explain why this is the case and that LAME encoding is simply clock cycle dependent. Thus the faster clocked p4 will always win over the slower clocked but more robust Athlon CPU. Benchmarkers need to be able to explain all the dependent variables, to tell why the results happen.
The fact that the quality of the difference of magnitude between variables is not meaningfully measurable leads to future design problems. In graphics cards Q3 benchmarks above a certain magnitude are meaningless. The reviewer with meaningless variables creates an inauthentic conditioned desire in the consumer that leads to bad and lax software and hardware engineering. Morrowind and other games have horrible problems with their graphics engine that can not be saved by faster GPUs and dx9.
First Amazon takes over CDnow, and now they are take over the campaign contribution process.
If you search for 'justice' all you get is "Chitty Chitty bang bang," which makes sense because if you search for Michael Jackson you get "LOTR."
I hope Amazon doesn't try and copyright the "one issue politician"?
Slashdot Mirror
Though not specifically stated but defined by the context of the text was my intention to semantically contain the extension of my propositions to the set of consumer and prosumer computer fields. That is why I limited my examples accordingly. Without warrant you enlarged the scope of the conversation simply so that you may argue yet another point. I only enlarged the scope for purposes of analogy.
If you would read carefully a statement such as "Benchmarks do not elucidate any fact" you would have seen that it was stated to mean simply that the graphing of numbers alone (such as a Q3 f/s or lame encode value in seconds) does not have any measure of significant value.
1. A proper computer benchmark article/paper should give a lucid explanation of the lower level cause of the values. The attempt to explain causality I believe is the root of any scientific enterprise.
2. A benchmark should also orient itself towards the subjectivity of the potential user. If it is a benchmark concerning time, then the question of the potential perception of that time should also be the focus and not simply the time or f/s value out of context.
3. A product is always being benchmarked. The reviewer should always see if a product makes economic sense answering questions concerning decision theory like, who needs a Gallatin core based system?
4. The websites and magazines should behave like real journalists and scientists. A benchmark article should link or reference other benchmark values from other articles. The reviewer should also reference experts and receive comments by experts.
I was not in any way relating my use of the term 'benchmark' to fields such as the measurement of the conversion efficiency of solar cells. The term 'benchmark' corresponds to computer benchmark sites that test such limited things as, winbench, cpu temperature in relation to heatsink, asio latency, etc.
It is my belief that large part there are no quality computer review sites/magazines that have good benchmarks. Anandtech and Hardocp are moderate in quality for standard computer hardware. Anandtech tries to explain the technology. Hardocp has good editorial that does not overvalue hardware like Tom's does. You cannot find any good benchmarks on any good professional audio cards or digital video equipment.
Subjective crap. You have experienced every car and alarm clock that has ever existed and then based on your opinion of them, proclaimed that there are no good ones because you don't think they're good.
Subjective versus objective? Subjective as in relative? Subjective as in imminent? Subject as in unverifiable?
I'm not using pure induction am I? I am using adduction.
I stand behind the belief that consumer products are engineered in the worst possible manner. This is done for various reasons but mainly because of market segmentation (SCSI, EIDE) and planned obsolesce.
It is an "objective" fact that a simple thing such as an alarm clock is horribly engineered. Here are 4 good engineering changes that would create a better alarm clock.
1. What is the percentage of alarm clocks with a capacitor backup? Almost all alarm clocks are completely battery dependent for backup.
2. How many alarm clocks are as easy to set as an older VCR? It takes 5 seconds to set the time and date on an older VCR (buttons with hour, minute +, -.) I have used alarm clocks that have taken upwards of 3 minutes to set, because they only had an increase value button that affected the minutes.
3. Alarm clocks most frequently use the perceptually brightest color, green. Why do we need an alarm clock that functions as a night light?
4. How many alarm clocks have settable sleep buttons? Why can we only sleep in for another 7, 9, or 11 minutes? Why is the alarm reset button so near to the repeat alarm button?
Its a quote from The Princess Bride. Wallace Shawn said it to Cary Elwes.
How do you know that the NSA is only supporting Linux so that you will suspect them of malicious intent and therefore making it more likely that you will use FreeBSD which the NSA actually has critical exploits for.
You've fallen right into their trap.
You've fell victim for one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia.
But only slightly less well known is this never go in against a Sicilian when (FreeBSD) death is on the line.
After writing all that I thought of the clearest possible manner to elucidate my point unless you attempt to obfuscate by simple obvious points that are meant to function as counter arguments.
1.
A benchmark has to be proved meaningful, that is prima facie has to be proven. In other words, the reviewer has to use a benchmark where the difference in units is a significant value.
A drop of 100 fps to x fps is significant for CS.
What is that minimum value of x.
If all future cards are greater than x, then that benchmark is not significant.
Analogy:
Is a consumer cars maximum speed (miles/hour) a meaningful unit? No because all cars produced can go over 70mph.
Mpg is a meaningful unit.
Total cost of ownership is a meaningful unit.
There reason body design (SUV, sports car) and maximum speed of cars are taken to be significant units is because people can be socially engineered on an ideological and psychological level to purchase cars based upon those signifiers. Signifiers do not correspond to an ideal world of truth, but to marked units that are meant to affect/construct decisions. Those are not real world benchmarks but synthetic potential decisions.
2.
The review ought to explain the cause of the differences of benchmark values through a full explanation of the lower level structure.
3.
Companies depend on signifiers to sell products. Companies use insignificant benchmark values to sell products. Companies focus on specific benchmark values (3dmark) instead of developing meaningful units of quality measurement. Case in point the GeForce 5200 was created to be an entry level dx9 compatible card. Nvidia simply cared about these signifiers in creating the card dx9 and RAM amount when creating this card. This card should never have been made. The 5700 should have been the entry level dx9 card, while Nvidia kept its Geforce4 mx line at 32 mb to 64 mb of ram.
Your counterpoints are rhetorical. Your rhetoric lacked any empirical counterpoints. Give examples of benchmarks. Link a good case of benchmarking. Find a good benchmark. You are simply covering through weak counter argument some of the points that I was trying to uncover. You can't find good practices of benchmarking because there are problems in the foundations of the ideological and engineering in the tech industry. Why? Because technology is simply business.
.NET 2003 would not look like it does if Microsoft ever spent time meaningfully watching people use the program. There is only the deep-rooted creation of unauthentic demand for badly designed products. For example Microsoft created a horrible install for Windows 2k and XP. It spends 5 minutes installing SCSI drivers. The installation should ask if you are running a SCSI device before loading the drivers. It then necessitates user input on what should be a user free situation. It should ask for a computer and user name at the beginning of the install and bypass the networking and time zone features in the install.
) )
There are barely any good consumer products produced by engineers. There are no good cars, no easily adaptive alarm clocks, etc. It's because the information concerning the production of products is private, and because there is no meaningful observation of the use of products. Visual Studio
Benchmarks are units that are marked and interpreted as meaningful. You cannot separate the benchmark, the procedure, and structure of the hardware and software processes. The benchmark value and the procedure ideally elucidate the structure of the hardware and the procedure.
The fact that benchmarks are horrible marketing tools is an empirical fact. Benchmarks create an inauthentic desire for a horrible product. Prove that benchmarks do not quantify a misleading unit that represents measure of development.
( LAME encoding is not a meaningful unit of measurement for the differences between a Pentium and an Athlon (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1LDI=
The fact that all hardware and software products are horribly produced is an empirical fact.
Here are some really (not very) good products: software raid, all computer speakers, Nvidia 5200 chips without zcompression, 128mb ram entry level graphics cards, the PIV under 2ghz.
The best audio cards RME, Digidesign, Creamwear, MOTU are simply cheap dsps, A/D D/A units, and minimal amounts of cheap ram (how much does ram cost again?) How much do these professional systems cost? How often does Digidesign force upgrades?
A quest: find a systematic review of a top of the line audio card or analog/dv encoding card/system and the relevant software. It does not exist.
Find a systematic review of various computer systems performance in Solid Works or Maya and the profitability and quality improvement of the various upgrade paths. It does not exist.
With current hardware why would we ever need performance reviews of business software?
All top of the line video cards drop by a value of 1/2 within roughly 6 months of their initial time of sale. People buy the top of the line cards not for performance reasons, but for purely social reasons. This neurosis does allow for a convenient business model that keeps the graphics hardware development steady, unlike audio hardware development.
Benchmarking as a science is not developed. If you are doing time tests you have to perceptions tests and so on.
There are no intelligent consumers. Go buy a new Suburban and spend $120 on some new kicks made by little children.
Why did anyone ever think that the prequels were going to be any good.
Return of the Jedi came out in 83
What came next?
People always forget that Lucas produced Howard the Duck in 1986 as his next major scifi work.
Here is a working link http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/index.php?c Path=22&osCsid=c755fe8bd3e6a4dd0010ebe4915ddf5 3
and just in case the link goes down
http://www.performance-pcs.com/
Sleeves are the only way to go, especially with windows.
He could have at least used a better PSU.
i nf o.php?products_id=957&osCsid=e019391d784c2247745f4 de7d3d73923
http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/product_
He used rounded cables but his PSU had power connector clutter like no other.
Benchmarks do tell lies.
Benchmarks are meant to ideally test minimal pairs, the video encoding time difference between a p4 3.2 @266fsb and a p4 3.466 @266fsb doing. But in benchmarking scientific rigor is always lost, and this turns benchmarks into a rhetorical tool
But the benchmark choice is frequently meaningless or misleading.
Benchmarks do not elucidate any fact. You will always see in CPU tests LAME encoding. The p4 will always win against an Athlon. The reviewer will not explain why this is the case and that LAME encoding is simply clock cycle dependent. Thus the faster clocked p4 will always win over the slower clocked but more robust Athlon CPU. Benchmarkers need to be able to explain all the dependent variables, to tell why the results happen.
The fact that the quality of the difference of magnitude between variables is not meaningfully measurable leads to future design problems. In graphics cards Q3 benchmarks above a certain magnitude are meaningless. The reviewer with meaningless variables creates an inauthentic conditioned desire in the consumer that leads to bad and lax software and hardware engineering. Morrowind and other games have horrible problems with their graphics engine that can not be saved by faster GPUs and dx9.
First Amazon takes over CDnow, and now they are take over the campaign contribution process. If you search for 'justice' all you get is "Chitty Chitty bang bang," which makes sense because if you search for Michael Jackson you get "LOTR." I hope Amazon doesn't try and copyright the "one issue politician"?