No problem. Next time I see erroneous data that also has omissions to be used to construct a set of premises (wrong speed grade, different memory speeds), upon which to establish a conclusion (the Pentium M is equal or better than the AMD 64), then I guess it doesn't matter. It just seemed like you were saying the comparison was an apple's to apple's comparison, when it in fact it isn't.
I understand now. Correcting data is not the same as contributing data. (sigh)
Tim
PS The "maybe your conscience talking" comment was directed at your initial reply to my message when all you needed to do is say "oops, I just a made a mistake thanks for pointing that out". Deceptive doesn't necessarily mean ill intent; it just means that the conclusion drawn is wrong. You are influential on this board and I thought a correction was merited. (It's not like it's coming from niceguy767 or windsock) Also, as you see below, deception can be inadvertent.
deceptive
adj 1: causing one to believe what is not true or fail to believe what is true; "deceptive calm"; "a delusory pleasure" [syn: delusory] 2: tending to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently; "the deceptive calm in the eye of the storm"; "deliberately deceptive packaging"; "a misleading similarity"; "statistics can be presented in ways that are misleading"
I just don't want people basing investment decisions with the belief that AMD's new cutting edge mobile technology is inferior to Intel's leading edge technology mobile when the data cited doesn't quite make an even comparison.
I would do the same with Dan3's stuff, but you guys always beat me to the punch ;-)
Truce?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
