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

In article <813c2b8f-c4a6-4400-9b93-e2018cb9bff6
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> 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.

Of a wannabe processor architect and elitist snob?  Hardly.

> > <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.

Of course I'm beneath you.  You constantly make it clear that 
everyone is.  Typical leftist elitism.

> > <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.

You're quite transparent, Robert.  

> > <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.

No, you proposed nothing of the kind.  You're "proposals" are that 
only you know what people "need", certainly more than they do 
themselves.  Nothing but what you "know" should be allowed.  Again, 
typical Marxist claptrap.  

> > > >> 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.

Look, you're an idiot.  ...nothing new.

> > <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.

Hardly. I'm not the one claiming that there is only one way to 
design software and that anything else shouldn't exist.
> >
> > > > 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.

You're simply saying that sooner or later the lawyers are going to 
bankrupt everyone, why leave it to just the tobacco companies and 
hospitals.  ...and you think it's a good idea!

> > <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.

Little to do with the subject at hand.  Such was happening long 
before your "shoddy" software design processes.  

-- 
Keith