Re: AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

On May 20, 6:48 pm, krw <k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <g0u84b$59...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> s.usun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>
> > Robert Myers wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The best that we can do at this point is to limit access based on
> > > skill.
>
> Typical answer of leftist elitists.
>
You sound envious.

> <snip>
>
> > > What has socialism got to do with this discussion?
>
> > Whe I wrotre it's capitalism out here you starde with your values and
stuff.
>
> But Robert knows what's good for everyone on the planet.  *HE*
> should be king!
>
That's just beneath you.  Have drink or smoke something.  You seem
even more stressed than usual.

> <snip>
>
> > > Good enough reason not to trust them.  Maybe packet-switched
networks
> > > are not a good way to transmit "secure" data or maybe there has to
be
> > > an out of band (e.g. over telephone, preferably circuit-switched)
> > > component.
>
> > So what, return to the caves?
>
> That's exactly what Robert proposes, just like a good Marxist.
>
Don't presume to speak for me.

> <snip>
>
> > > Speculating about what happens when you change the rules is a
> > > fruitless enterprise.  Consider what has happened with CISC vs.
RISC.
>
> > When low hanging fruits were picked and transistor budgets big enough
it
> > simply does not matter anymore.
>
> That is *exactly* the point the armchair architects miss.  Though
> x86 is a kludge, the cruft no longer matters.  Transistors are free.
>
That was *exactly* my point.  The proposal was that software
development would go to hell in a handbasket if more stringent
standards were applied.  The CISC problem has been worked to an extent
that no one foresaw, and software verification could similarly be
worked to an extent that neither of you foresees.

> > >> You only shows your lack of grip in reality.
>
> > > That's just wild.
>
> > > Do you know the history of Long Term Capital management?  Do you
know
> > > what's happened with derivatives all over the world?  Do you know
the
> > > current parlous state of financial markets?
>
> > If you dont's see the difference between fincncial market (an
unpredictable
> > system full of positive feedback loops, driven by agents working to
> > completely unknown rules) and complex, but closed and static product,
we
> > heve nothing to talk about.
>
> Not only unknown dynamics, but unknowable dynamics; Schroedinger's
> cat on steroids.
>
Look.  The bald statement was made that financial institutions know
how to estimate risk.  Given the moment that the claim is being made,
it's beyond ludicrous.  It's like claiming that George Bush knows how
to run a war.

> <snip>
>
> > > The distinction you want to make is a fiction
> > > that sup****ts your business model.
>
> > Nonsense. It's reality. If my software is a solitaire game it's not
critical
> > at all. If it's a departamental email server software it's im****tant
but
> > not critical. If it's a accounting + do***ent flow + store management
+ hr
> > management software package for mid size business it's business
critical.
> > If it's a atomic reactor process controller it's life critical.
>
> I once had the task of identifying "critical software" for our
> function.  Not being an IT type, I had some problems defining
> "critical".  The IT director made a story about the site burning to
> the ground with all the payroll records.  Was the payroll
> "critical".  Nope, they'd just go to the bank and hand out money to
> anyone with some sort of proof that they were employees.  They could
> balance the books later.  We didn't have any critical records.  ;-)
>
I think you make my point for me.
>
>
> > > I don't have to sup****t fictions
> > > and I don't have to sup****t your business model.
>
> > You don't have to sup****t reality as well. Relaity doesn't care,
neither do
> > I.
>
> > >> Or maybe hammer I can buy at any farmers shop is a critical device,
as it
> > >> could be used for criminal activity.
>
> > > A four pound hammer was at one time a fairly common carpenter's
tool.
> > > Repeated use causes elbow injury.  If you hand one to a workman in
the
> > > US and he uses it and injures his elbow, you're going to have all
> > > kinds of problems.
>
> > Yeah,and you propose suing hammer producer... And that's a nonsense
(even if
> > in US it's currently at least advisable to label the hammer with
nonsense
> > stickers like not for children, don't use it to hit yor fingers, don't
> > leave it when working at height, etc.. its still pure absolute
nonsense.
>
> "Not for internal use"
>
You can act silly in every way you want.  In every field of commerce
*except* software development, it's getting harder and harder to lay
risk off onto the end user.  That's the direction that *capitalism*
has taken.  These issues are settled in the courts and legislatures,
not in Usenet rants.  Sooner or later, laissez-faire software
development will be reigned in because the ac***ulated risks to
society of the system we have now are unacceptable.  Calling me names
will change nothing.

> <snip>
>
> > > Not so in software, and we are already paying
> > > the price.
>
> > No, we get it cheper that way.
>
> No, we *get* it that way.
>
We get it, all right.  People's identities and medical records are
stolen en masse, bank accounts are pilfered, and the Internet is home
to powerful botnets with unknowable levels of capability or
maliciousness of intent.

Robert.