Now you have completely missed the point. First, the expression was 'Rush Limbaugh like'. Defined was a concept that both Rush Limbaugh and Hilter used. A technique so common to propaganda. The point is, again, that when one does not provide supporting facts - and especially the numbers - with assertions, then one is using a 'Rush Limbaugh like' technique.

Second, at no time in that post was Radar declared another Rush Limbaugh. Please reread the post more carefully - and only for what is specifically stated in that post. Demonstrated is why your earlier post receieved so much criticism. It made statements in a format that Rush Limbaugh would be proud of.

I actually have known Tom a long time...
 

Radar,

I've known him since 1991-1992.

He is completely well-researched, and is a respected engineer. He has my respect because he does his homework and is very well-spoken, as he has shown again in this case.

At no time did he insult you. He simply stated facts.

And yes, you are acting similarly to Rush Limbaugh. If I wanted to hear Rush-like banter, I'll turn on my radio or follow some links off of the Drudge Report site, not here.

When I want to talk technology with people who really know what they are talking about, and who do not sling insults, I'll come here. If you want to flame, there's always Fark :).

Mitch

And you are.....?


If you want to talk technology with people who really know what they're talking about, you'd want to talk to me instead of a woefully misinformed guy like tw. I actually AM an engineer and I actually work in the field. I've used my skills for aerospace, banking, entertainment, and now biotech companies. I'm at the bleeding edge of technology, and I've remained there for the last 20+ years.

I could give a shit about you comparing me to Rush Limbaugh. Because you're nobody. Before today, I've never seen a single one of your posts so your opinion means less than nothing.

You claim he state facts. You are a liar. He did not state any facts. All he did was say, "Nuh uh" to the facts that I stated....and backed up. He didn't provide a single reference where I provided several.

So run off little boy and let the adults like me do the talking.

He's Mitch.

Radar, you keep talking about your degree. Is your degree in chip design? quantum mechanics? If not, then your "I am an engineer" statement means squat. Being a 'network engineer' in no way qualifies you as an expert in this domain.

My degree is in computer science engineering, which yes, includes chip design. I haven't actually designed chips or even used those skills since college years ago, because I went into networking. In either case, I am an engineer, and work with the latest and greatest technology whether it's communication satellites, or immunodiagnostic testing equipment. I always keep up on what's current, and what I said was correct. I provided references and he didn't.

Talking shit with nothing to back it up (like tw and dar) to someone who actually can back it up and who has offered references is an untenable position.

You're still blowing smoke, kid. I have not yet made a statement about Moore's law. I asked you to clarify one of your statments and I called you on your protestations of authority. So your statement is a bit premature.

I've also had a course in chip design and I suspect I've been in the computer industry longer than you. But I don't think that makes me an expert in this area and I don't think you are either.

On the subject of providing references, tw's first post referenced the front page of the Aug 15 EE Times. Nothing radar has posted is even on the topic of what tw originally posted from the EE Times.

And in fact everything he has posted (as tw noted) suggests that quantum computing is too far off to combat Moore's law slowdown. In fact the first meaningful link he posted on quantum computing notes, right in the summary, The FIRST STEP after YEARS of work.

tw has provided a very meaningful reference that backs up his assertion. radar has posted semi-meaningful references that disprove his assertion.

That's my summary of the account so far but you all could re-read the thread and see for yourself.

I have a Bachellor's in Geography, but I do not call myself a Geographer.

I have a Master's in Clinical Psychology and do not call myself a Psychologist.

Having a degree in engineering does not make you an engineer, unless you have worked in that particular discipline for a significant amount of time.

Last we knew, Radar, you were going around to people's offices and making sure they couldn't play Minesweeper.

What you call yourself is irrelevant. I suppose a person who graduates from medical school shouldn't call themselves a doctor too eh? The fact remains that if you have graduated in the coursework to become a doctor, you are one even if you choose not to use those skills. The same is true of all the other examples too.

Wolf, I also design, build, and support global computer networks consisting of different security models, wiring, topologies, network protocols, routing protocols, operating systems, hardware, software, databases, email systems, secure VPN's, etc.

I have never supported less than 800 people in any computer job since 1996.

I'm also not too proud to do any small job, especially when a vice-president requests it. So if they want me to boobytrap minesweeper, go to the house of the CEO to setup his wireless networking, unpack computers, do hardware fixes on old systems, or take a trip to Cabo, Mexico to setup 40 laptops, I do that too.

I provided meaningful and relevant references and facts backing up the assertion that Moore's law is in no danger of being violated because we'll have working quantum computers within 3 years. He gave worthless opinions backed by nothing.

http://cellar.org/calendar.php?do=ge...=2008-9-20&c=1

So noted in the Cellar calendar entry for September 20, 2008.

Awesome, UT! This is just like the "Book of Right" in my house. My family has a blank book where we write down all our argument-predictions, so we can tally long-term who's actually right. I want to see more dubious Dwellar claims placed on the calendar!

Most people are too smart/chicken to make predictions like that. I made a prediction earlier today in the hurricane thread that Rita won't be as bad as Katrina. I hope I'm right (especially for the victims' sake,) but that prediction might come back to haunt me.

Hi.

I'm not little. I also don't talk about my customers here, as it's frowned upon by them. I also know several of the users here personally, including Undertoad. In my line of work, I work in the same crowd as tw, Undertoad, and a few other users.

I have never heard anything but respect for those people, and even their former business partners.

I don't talk buzzwords.

I don't brag or make comments about my customers.

I also do research, and know the difference between a website and a peer-reviewed journal. EETimes is peer-reviewed. Your sites are not. TW, when he presents research, presents it from those sources. Any corporate researcher or academic will tell you which one is the most proven.

I've been here since 1991. Deal with it. I don't need to justify my posting frequency to you.

And BTW, the last guy I met with your attitude got tossed out of a customer's site. People with the attitude you have shown do not last long in any organization. Unfortunately, I encounter too many of you in my travels. People with that personality give IT consultants a bad name.

When you attempt to make blind judgements based on my number of posts, then you have proven yourself to be a real troll.

Go away, little boy. We have had enough of you. Find somewhere else to brag about what you do.

The first posted sentence sounded more like a eulogy at a funeral. Now we're on the verge of a cyberspace riot. I thought funerals like this were only in cartoons.