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

On May 23, 7:11 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
>
> > On May 22, 10:40 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > The poster was an AMD architect.
>
> If so, perhaps s/he could not see the forest for the trees.

Oh, who knows.  The architects I've talked to publicly and privately
seem to have a pretty good grasp of forest and trees.  They're not
bean-counters, though.

> However large it might seem inside, in the context of the
> whole industry, AMD is nothing.  And I like them.
>
I like the Boston Red Sox.  I don't generally cheer for companies as
if they were s****ts teams.  On the other hand, I can regret the
direction that an industry is driven by competitive pressures: the big
three auto-makers to large vehicles and the processor business to x86
monoculture.


>
> Unbelieveable ... you have confidence in the US Congress and
> political process???  They're the ones who regulate [or not] markets.
> I never would have accused you of that :)  So you think cableTV &
> internet is a market that "works" [deregulated], vitamins do not
> [set for a clamp-down] and cellphones do not [FCC].
>
The human race has not flourished to the extent that it has because it
is socially inept as a whole.  It may not always be pretty, but humans
get things done.

>
> > My friend is *dead*.
>
> My condolences.  But frankly less than for those who lose a child.
> We all die one day, and there are lots of risks before then.
>
The drug industry is not now and never has been adequately regulated,
and people die because of that fact.  I'd like to say that your belief
in free markets is touchingly childlike, but it seems more like
obstinately fundamentalist to me.  I don't care for fundamentalism of
any flavor.

> > I thought financial wizards knew how to estimate risk.
>
> ??? even if they did, why would they tell you the truth
> from free?  Wall Street is all about selling paper, and
> the wizards are just window dressing.
>
I was dealing with a hot-head who claimed that financial institutions
know how to estimate risk.  When I pointed out the obvious, he changed
his assertion.  Yes, indeed, just as I said, Wall Street is a kind of
Ponzi scheme, and the game right now is who gets stuck with the bad
paper.

> >> At work, I've been an ISO-certified internal auditor for 5 years.
> >> The ISO 9000 series really isn't onerous at all: "say what you do,
> >> and do what you say".  It is mostly just good management and some
> >> do***entation that you really should have been keeping all along.
>
> > It depends on the business you're in, I suppose.
>
> Not much, really.  The ISO 9000s are very flexible and applicable to
> many different kinds of product.  However, they are _NO_ guarantee
> of any particular quality standard beyond that which management
> and customers agree upon.  Plenty of weasle-room.
>
Doesn't agree with what I've seen.

> > This is not a discussion of politics.  I brought him up
> > as another "expert" that no one who knew recent history
> > would cite.
>
> Then why bring GWB up?  No US President since Jimmy Carter has ever
> been accused of any special expertise.  All have been generalists.
>
I needed an outrageous counter-example.  No one should be citing
financial institutions as competent to *****s risk and no one should
be asking George Bush how to go to war.  It has nothing to do with
politics or even George Bush.  I don't like George Bush much, but I
feel badly for someone in the spot he's in.  He's had to give up golf,
for example.

> > Financial institutions claim that one of their areas o
> > of special expertise is management of risk.
>
> Salesman****p.  Is it printed on glossy paper?
> Then you know it is most probably an unproveable lie.
>
> > Recent history has proven that they are at best unreliable.
>
> Are you young?  Past history too (S&L & more).
>
The end conclusion is that capitalism is a vast con game.  It may well
be.

> >> You should study Taleb's book "Black Swans"
>
> > Looks like an interesting book.  Thanks for calling it
> > to my attention.
> > The difference is that most software risk is not
> > unexpected and can be eliminated.
>
> No.  Please study the Halting Problem [Turing].
> In simple terms, you cannot make anything foolproof
> because fools are too d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ingenious!
>
I get tired of people talking about the Halting Problem, Goedel,
Turing, P, and NP, and heaven only knows what else.  There are
concrete steps that can be taken to improve the reliability of
software dramatically.  I have no interest at all in cosmic
conclusions about software, or markets, or anything else, particularly
when garden variety shoddy workman****p is hiding behind cosmic
conclusions.



>
> > What will *not* happen, unfortunately, is to recognize the
> > behavior patterns of managers present in both cases and to
> > eliminate such people from critical decision-making roles.
>
> Agreed.  But why would you expect the power-seekers to
> relinquish power?
>
Good question.

> > ISP's are packet-capturing now.  CISCO has just released
> > an appliance with mind-bending bandwidth.
>
> GHz or THz is nice for a switch but doesn't help capture.  Do the
> math: Even a small 100 Mbps neighborhood will fill a 1 TB disk
> per day.  Who is going to shuffle, sort & search all of those?
>
Only the British think that omnipresence is necessary to fight crime,
and they're finding that their implementation of the panopticon is a
huge waste of money.  You don't have to watch everything.  You only
have to watch enough to keep the honest people honest and hope that
you can catch enough of the really dishonest people to make a
difference.  That's a general law enforcement strategy, not just one
for the Internet.

Robert.