>>And *no* credible mainstream > computing > > journalist will trust a vendor provided benchmark. They've > seen enough > > such material, most of which appears to be compost.
Which again confirms Robinson's Corollary to Sturgeon's Law: 90% of _everything_ is crap. (Sturgeon's Law focuses only on the 90% of science fiction that is crap.) I don't think anyone is asking the mainstream press to take a non-critical view -- it's a different industry and a different set of assumptions than the large systems world posesses. It is however not unreasonable to ask the mainstream press to check their facts and assumptions with someone who possesses the appropriate skills to evaluate whether a particular assertion falls into the diamond or compost piles. This has little to do with whether the claims are true or false; it's basic Journalism 101 -- check your facts and confirm with an expert when it's outside your personal area of expertise. In my case, Mr Murphy's "multiple attempts" consisted of a single email with no identifying comments regarding what he intended to do with the information. A single email does not constitute a reasonable attempt to verify his facts. In either case, there is a reply forthcoming. I honestly don't know when it will appear, because quite frankly, I'm busy doing it, not talking about it, and I have limited time to use. I would pose that as a challenge to Mr Murphy's assertion: if it's such a bad idea, why are so many people interested in doing it? -- db
