Re: When the Hell.......................

On May 6, 10:12 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"imipak" <imi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c578ba16-1da0-4503-ac26-b898a556f461@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 6, 7:49 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"Hornplayer9599" <Hornplayer9...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:SfGdncG37tTTqp_XnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Agamemnon wrote:

Crap or not, I still won by default since the software and models
provided were not fit for purpose.

That is a spurious argument since you used them anyway. Using them
implies that they met with your approval and *were* fit for purpose.

No it does not. It implies that they were only being tested and the tests
prove that they are not fit for purpose and should have never been
supplied.
I therefore win by default.

<<<Then why were everyone else's better?>>>

You used different software and a different model from what you supplied me
with you CLUELESS IMBECILE!

<<<And if the ones you picked were no good, why did you stick with them
when you had so many alternatives to choose from?>>>

Given your examples of the alternatives, ALL OF THEM WERE COMPLETE AND UTTER
CRAP and not fit for purpose.

Interesting, given that BMRT is essentially the same one as used in
the movie. Are you saying James Cameron wasn't using software fit for
the purpose?

<<<(For that matter, why did you choose the worst of the options in the
first place, so you could fail and claim you tried? That's not trying,
but it is failing.)>>>

Why did you supply them in the first place when they were clearly not fit
for purpose? By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail
the challenge by default. If you knew that they were not fit for purpose
before you supplied them then you fail the challenge by default. If you
didn't know they were not fit for purpose before you supplied them then you
still fail the challenged by default. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL!

The purpose was to see if you could render in real-time as you'd
claimed. Even your hideous image took you 36 seconds, which is hardly
the same as 1/24th of a second.

Only the supply of James Cameron's original model and the software he used
to render it on, modified to work on a modern high-end PC and fully compiled
and optimised would have met the requirements I set for the challenge. I
knew full well you would never be able to meet those requirements from the
start. You are an IDIOTIC FOOL to have even dared to challenge me. I always
qualify everything I say so you will never be able to catch me out. Haven't
you learned anything by now. Don't enter an unwinnable argument.

You never set the challenge, you were given it. You agreed to it,
without qualifiers. It is only AFTER you were given the files that you
"mysteriously" started adding those. However, they were never part of
the challenge, which was to see if you could indeed render an image in
real-time as you'd boasted. (Your brags included being able to do
better than The Mill on your home computer.) You failed to accomplish
this task. End of story. Your later requirements are of no interest to
me, or to anyone else, because they weren't part of what you'd been
challenged to prove.

This has nothing to do with Titanic the movie and everything to do
with whether your computer was capable of rendering real-time. By your
own admission of taking 36 seconds to produce crap, you showed that it
was not. You weren't out by a factor of 7, as you'd later tried to
claim, but by a factor of a thousand. (Well, actually, 1040.) To do
actual rendering in real-time, you were out by a factor of a hundred
thousand.

I challenged you to show that your computer was 200x as fast as those
used in the movie as you'd asserted, yet instead you showed that your
computer was about 1/20th of the speed of those used in the movie.
Yes, I dared to challenge your claim that you had something seven
times more powerful than Los Alamos. Only an idiot would have believed
you. And my challenge to your claim was shown by your own data to have
been fully justified.

You continue, even to this day, to rephrase the challenge in efforts
to squirm out and excuse your numbers. It's pathetic, as is your
continued efforts to re-direct those threads you're on to the greek
society's newsgroup in your efforts to troll and flood their group.
Like I said, you're no Greek. Greeks would not troll their own
newsgroup. Your efforts to hurt Greeks prove that you are a fraud.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When the Hell.......................
    ... implies that they met with your approval and *were* fit for purpose. ... By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: When the Hell.......................
    ... >>> provided were not fit for purpose. ... By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail ... I said I could render it 200 times faster than a high-end PC back in 1995 on a modern high-end PC. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: O2 dont seem to care about security! Paul Muttons little rant continues
    ... it is not fit for purpose Bob? ... I've not accused him of anything other than being an anonymous nutter who ... he might understand everything and just be a major troll - but ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Planning on buying Vista?
    ... In the UK we have a law about goods you buy being "fit for purpose". ... than 512MB of RAM, and it caused the OS to crash. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: When the Hell.......................
    ... implies that they met with your approval and *were* fit for purpose. ... By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)