-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > That means that they are likely comparing fairly new, large ATA 7200RPM > drives to *significantly* older 7200RPM SCSI drives. That's a bit unfair.
They aren't. Read the papers. :) > Actually, I found the Google paper a prime example of academics creating > a not terribly useful paper because it lacks details. They hide the raw > data, it is difficult to reproduce, and it lacks predictive power. Most of their data agreed with the other papers which are independent of google. I find that pretty interesting. > We would be better off if they published the raw data without comment. Would you really have sifted through all of that data and done a similar analysis for yourself? I know I wouldn't. And would you have kept the results to yourself and given us the raw data without comment as well? I mean, someone has to comment right? - -- Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org D4A8 4860 535C ABF8 BA97 25A6 F4F2 1829 9615 02AD Non-GPG signed mail gets read only if I can find it among the spam. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF3Acm9PIYKZYVAq0RAqHTAJ9pcw1FK/Qu18L3DbYoS1HPxupGoQCfTBNw Y/KZuFmwawcfTSOjZTKPOUE= =V/HW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
