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

Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
> 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.

At what cost and via what mechanisms?  The CISC "problem" was
not consciously worked as a problem, and certainly not around
any edicts.  x86 is rather like english -- it succeeded and
prdominates for subtle reasons _in_spite_of_ theoretical problems.

Quality is a variable to be optimized, not some 
deity to be wor****pped.  "Beware false gods".

> 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.

Merely because something turns out badly does not prove
any particular cause of that failure.  Ex post facto.

> 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.

There is risk in everything we do.  And different coping mechanisms.
I see no reason to suppose that software quality will be legislated
or otherwise adjudicated.  Legal and scientific proofs are
fundamentally different.  Far more likely, certifying agencies
will evolve like UL.  Where human life is at risk, certification
might be legislated.  Otherwise using the principle of minimum
interference, contract and tort remedies would apply.  Note UCITA
failed in nearly all states, and safe harbor in some.

> 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.

Oh dear, you really _do_ live in fear.  NYC? My sympathies.

Most of the listed items are _potentials_ whose probability
and consequences need to be weighed against other threats.


-- Robert