Comment Re:Benchmarks (Score 1) 444
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?
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?
