mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (10/31/90)
In article <42530@mips.mips.COM> crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp) writes: >stuck their neck out and printed some unfounded rumor as they have >done recently involving BIT and the R6000 chipset. It happens all >the time in the press. > >You just can't believe everything you read. Actually, you might be able to believe 5%, but that's about it. Many press folks try really hard to to write carefully-checked stories, under tough deadlines, while trying to track technology that moves at an insane pace, where things that sounded like fantasy one year turn out to be standard technology a few years later. I speak with the press a lot, and even people trying real hard to get right make mistakes, in the best of cases, because this stuff is tricky. But in the worst of cases: you believe "Rumors" columns at your peril, as these quite often print things based on the scantiest of data, most often gotten by talking to people who DO NOT REALLY KNOW, because, of course, the people who DO KNOW properly will not say anything. I trust none of this stuff, because there have been too many times where I knew exactly what was really going on, (having been directly involved), and then saw absolutely ridiculous mangled versions printed, and then, seen it posted on the net in the form "I hear that" ..... as though there were any credibility whatsoever. Thus, if I don't know anything about the topic, I give it a 5% chance of reality, as that's about the hit rate I see on nonobvious things where I do know what's happening. (Nonobvious means to ignore obvious things, like "XXX is preparing a faster version of their CPU" or "YYY is rumored to be building a new workstation based on the next generation of the chip they used in their last generation." Of course they are, what else would they be doing? :-) For most of the 5%, I think the hit comes from the fact that there are enough predictions about a constrained set of choices that some MUST be right.... Do not have faith in stories labeled "sources close to the company say..." This means they couldn't find anyone to quote who knew. Likewise, be suspicious of stories where the only people quoted are industry analysts. There are good ones and bad ones, but if they're the only ones quoted, again, they couldn't find anyone directly involved. Well, suppose they do quote somebody directly involved? Is that better? Probably, but then you should read carefully, and see if there is any axe being ground.... Especially for big companies, do NOT take on faith stories that read "Sources inside XXX say there's trouble in project B." There might be trouble in project B, but more likely, some reporter found somebody in Project A, which is competitive with Project B, (and inside big companies, there are ALWAYS multiple competing projects), who is willing to say why A is better than B, and that B has problems. The one thing you can be sure of is that the source for this info was NOT somebody in ---- So, here's a plea: before you post things based on such stuff, unless you have some REAL information, think about: a) Not posting it at all. b) At least posting it in the form of a question, like: "magazine X said ..... Does anybody know if there is any truth to that at all, or is it complete random junk? If nobody can post any positive evidence, I'll consider it junk." -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086