my observation of RDI in JonBenet on websleuth forumsforjustice reddit topix vs computer tech forums

View previous topic View next topic Go down

my observation of RDI in JonBenet on websleuth forumsforjustice reddit topix vs computer tech forums

Post by redpill on Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:57 am

Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven

Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:16 am

back in the day, the days when the celeron 300a ruled the roost, when quake and unreal were the FPS par excellence i got into building my own computer, something that simply wasn't possible before then.

in the deep past you could go to a toy store and buy a commodore 64, radio shack and buy a tandy 1000, or a department store like sears and buy an apple

decade later you could build your own computer. one reason to do so is to play games like doom and unreal

one reason to overclock the computer which is run the cpu at faster speed is it requires higher voltage and more cooling and power, is to run games better.

there are several tech forums dedicated to this

some i have visited in the past include

www.anandtech.com
tomshardware.com
overcockers.net


on these forums are genuine actual computer engineers and enthusiasts with actual genuine knowledge of the science engineering and technology of computer technology.

on that forum for example i learn you could over clock a celeron 300a to 450mhz using a pin trick, connecting via wire two pins forcing the voltage

these forums have actual engineers who have actual genuine university knowledge of how computers work from ram memory to cpu design to hard drives interfaces etc.

common topics involve debates bewteen powerpc which was RISC and intel/amd which was CISC

cache hierarchy, pipeline superscaler superpipeline hyperthreading bandwidth latency

rambus vs ddr memory

technical discussions of consoles from the n64 and ps1 to dreamcast gamecube to ps4 and xbox

cpu used memory,

discussions on video SLI configuration beefy power supplies, etc

hard drive, interfaces SSD

monitors, dot pitch refresh rate, nvidia nsnc and amd free sync

microssoft windows direct x 9 10 11

most of the discussion is ultimately focus on the goal to create a pc that can play games well, a common question is can it play chrysis which is a demanding game

there are computer engineers who discussion amd ryzen vs intel core i9 cpu and difference between monolithic vs microkernel design in operating system, different types of file systems etc

for those in the know, the xbox one was inferior to the original ps4, for example
and nvidia and intel are the best graphics and cpu if you can afford it

different types of coolers from heat pipes to water cooling

these forums often have posters with actual engineering degrees commenting.

imagine a forum consisting of posters who have never studied any computer technology, never studied any engineering
commenting on technical aspects of cpu design, such as in the amd athlon vs the intel pentium 4

clearly its absurd to imagine, but that's basically what's the case in jonbenet forums

by point of contrast, when i visit and read RDI in JonBenet on forums devoted to true crime,

i have never, not once, ever read a single RDI, not on websleuth ffj, topix reddit etc, with actual knowledge of the relevant forensics

a clear example of rdi ignorance


one forumsforjustice poster is koldkase, who is also on websleuth and topix

this is her claim
koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.
koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

koldkase is a house wife with zero scientific or forensic qualifications

similarly, on topix,
Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me
Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

neither capricorn nor koldkase has ever studied any forensic science of any kind at anytime in their life, ever, yet they are commenting on something they've never understood

compare with osnews

Analysis: x86 Vs PPC

http://www.osnews.com/comments/3997

8080 and 8086 are unrelated
by goo.. on Wed 9th Jul 2003 18:17 UTC

They are neither binary nor source compatible. Their interrupt, memory segmentation/banking, I/O modes are completly unrelated. 8080 is completly hand coded while 8086 uses microcode. 8080 has no complex instructions, 8086 has plenty of them. 8086 is way more complicated than 8080 with 16 bit additions (8080 can use 16 bit adressing with BC, DE or HL register couples, btw.)

IOW, 8086's only relation to 8080 is that both were designed and produced by intel. That is it. Intel might have said 8086 extends their midrange to 16 bit, which was established by 8080 but technically, they are completly unrelated CPUs even designed by different people (original 8080 designers left to found Zilog) and philosophy.

Who is dumbass now?

Great Article
by stingerman on Wed 9th Jul 2003 18:57 UTC

The most accurate and sincere attempt to lay out the facts in an environment that is filled with so much fear uncertainty and doubt. I've been following the x86 processor family since the first PC was released. My first PC was a Radio Shack system, I learned to program using an IBM PC using BSD Fortran 77, then Pascal and of course I taught myself basic as well. I bought a 1984 Mac and marveled at the 68000 processor. I marveled at the 80286 and remember my excitement when I got one of the first 20 Mhz PC's, it made my dBase code smoke. I also had the privilege of working on the S/38 which eventually became the AS/400 and I marvelled as IBM converted it over to the Power platform. The 80486 was most excellent with its virtual 86 capability and of course I was thrilled when Intel finally got the Pentium done right with the Pentium III. I was disappointed with the Pentium 4 and still am because I felt that Intel sold themselves to the marketing side. We all know that the Pentium 4 was a bad deal compared to the Pentium III till it broke 2Ghz, AMD taught Intel a lesson for that blunder and took a major chunk of their marketshare with what now is the Athlon. The Itanium is also a big disappointment, and it appears that Opteron and Athlon 64 will once again get more attention that Intel. I believe this is because Intel's engineers strayed from their discipline when the compromised on the Pentium 4 and it has been a long road back to excellence.

In the meantime, Intel left the market wide open for IBM and their 970 processor is just amazing, it truly is one of the most exciting developments I have seen for some time in the desktop world. To think that we have a processor that is a superset of the Power4 core and even faster, makes me excited. I was also blown away with the G5's architecture, it really is a new generation of machine and not an incremental change.

I'm not surprised really that Intel's ICC compiler vectorizes Spec's FP intended instructions. It really is rigging to the nth degree. And, I am not surprised that journalists in general do not do their due diligence. But, you are starting to restore my trust that there are still those out there who are willing to do some research before writing an article. And, congrats to the OSnews eidtorial staff to have the courage to publish it. Great writing and looking forward to reading more from you.


Why CISC isn't so bad
by Anton Klotz on Wed 9th Jul 2003 19:37 UTC

As Nicholas pointed out in this article CISC-commands are hard to decode, they are more complex, have different length ... But this also means that a CISC command carries more information from the memory to the processor than a RISC command. Nicholas also stated that the bottleneck is the processor <-> memory connection. So you can regard CISC commandos as a kind of compression algorithm, so more information can be transported to the CPU, which has time to decode this information into something it can handle optimal.

I can't provide you a link, but IBM thinks about integrating a GZIP-unit at memory controller and at processor for its zSeries, so the data are compressed before transfer.

Anton

Context Switching Faster in PPC vs x86
by hansnyc on Wed 9th Jul 2003 19:48 UTC

Interested, I checked out the website of MorphOS, in a paper about MorphOS "in Detail" it said the below. I think this would have been a big point in the article but it was not mentioned. Is it true and how does it work that it is 10x faster? And, more importantly, is that fast enough to provide a speedy OS?!

Thanks for the good article.

Microkernel Vs Macro Kernel

A common problem encountered in the development of microkernel Operating Systems is speed. This is due to the CPU having to context switch back and forth between the kernel and user processes, context switching is expensive in terms of computing power. The consequence of this has been that many Operating Systems have switched from their original microkernel roots and become closer to a macrokernel by moving functionality into the kernel, i.e. Microsoft moved graphics into the Windows NT kernel, Be moved networking inside, Linux began as a macrokernel so includes everything. This technique provides a speed boost but at the cost of stability and security since different kernel tasks can potentially overwrite one another�s memory.

Given the above, one might wonder why Q can be based on a microkernel (strictly speaking it�s only �microkernel like�) and still expected to perform well. The answer to this lies in the fact that MorphOS runs on PowerPC and not x86 CPUs. It is a problem with the x86 architecture that causes context switches to be computationally expensive. Context switching on the PowerPC is in the region of 10 times faster, similar in speed to a subroutine call. This means PowerPC Operating Systems can use a microkernel architecture with all it�s advantages yet without the cost of slow context switches. There are no plans for an x86 version of MorphOS, if this changes there will no doubt be internal changes to accommodate the different processor architecture.


by point of comparison, not a single RDI on any jonbenet website, no matter how long they have been obsessed with the case, has any actual technical or scientific knowledge of the relevant forensic science

they have not once ever even gone to the library and checked out a book on crime scene reconstruction or questioned document examination.

you find bogus b.s like delmar england on forumsforjustice but no scientific analysis grounded in standard textbook science, which of course only leads to IDI

there's no comparison between the quality of discussion of very smart computer engineers, with actual degrees in computer engineering, who are employed by intel, amd and ARM to design CPU, commenting on cpu's used on xbox and iphones

vs the non-science made up b.s RDI posters come up with on jonbenet forums.

case in point compare this on computers processor


Code Density
by GloomY on Sat 19th Jul 2003 12:22 UTC

I would like to carry on the argument of Anton Klotz in comment 56, that x86 has better code density due to inconsistent length of instructions. Of course this makes instruction decoding more difficult, but this yields some other advantages for x86 which have not been mentioned by Nicolas:
At first memory bandwidth required for instruction fetch from main memory is reduced (Anton Klotz pointed that out). Secondly the hitrate for the L1 instruction cache and L2 cache with both the same size is noticeably higher for x86, because of the greater code density. Thus, performance for RISC architectures is lower due to more cache misses when fetching instructions. This means that RISC processors need larger caches to acchieve the same hitrate when execution the same (!) type of application as x86. As everybody knows, caches eat up an enormous amount of transistors on the die. Therefore Nicolas' argument that you can save die space due to less complex decode circuits is simply ridiculous. The high code density of x86 is one of the greatest advantages of that architecure and not a weakness.

What I'm missing here is a fair consideration of both architectures. Only counting the advantages of RISC and the disadvantages of CISC is not what I call a good article...

the last comment about CISC advantage over RISC is standard textbook discussion of CISC and why even many RISC architectures like ARM Thumb have incorporated CISC. that poster has actually studied computer engineering.

I'm not saying every single poster on a computer site is an engineer or knowledgeable, only that there are such posters who post and comment.


with this on handwriting in Jonbenet


this is her claim
koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.
koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

koldkase is a house wife with zero scientific or forensic qualifications

similarly, on topix,
Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me
Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

no discussion of the scientific aspects of questioned document examination, mostly because they never studied it.

same with delmar england the fraud. the fact cynic promotes it shows he's never studied it either

ther'es no comparison to posters on computer forums who actually have studied computer engineering, commenting on cpu design
and RDI posters on rdi forums like websleuth forumsforjustice etc who have never studied any forensics textbook science, never took classes

if i could somehow win the lottery then i'd be back to my old ways of playing games, this time star wars battlefront and COD
i know that the xbox one x uses jaguar cores, but rumors are playstation 5 will use the far superior ryzen cores. sadly i'm an adult now and not a kid so no more games. kinda sad. i wish i could somehow swap places with a kid and start playing video games again.
when i was a kid i played games on an atari 2600 and galaga and pac man Sad no comparison to star wars battlefront and VR

re"

Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

almost every textbook in forensic science has a chapter on the impact Daubert has had on forensic science, and the fact not a single RDI discusses daubert and whether an expert qualifies under Daubert tells you immediately that RDI poster has ZERO knowledge of forensic science, and has never studied nor read any textbooks on forensic science


Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven



_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1906
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum