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

On May 26, 10:44 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s.usun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > I thought financial wizards knew how to estimate risk.
>
> What risk? You dont understand squat what you talk about. There is no
> general risk. So what risk? If they failed at one field doesnt mean they
> fail in much simpler ones. Show me one example of impropely estimated
risk
> wrt to software bringing down one of those companies...
>
You claimed that the people you work for know how to estimate risk.
Manifestly, financial institutions have their shortcomings in the area
of risk estimation.  Oh.  They know how to estimate software risk
(even though it's known to be an impossibly hard problem), but they
screw up on more im****tant kinds of risk?  Do you expect anyone to
take you seriously?

You've changed your story.  You remind me of the NASA managers.  What
they really wanted was a methodology that would say it was okay to
go.  That's all you really want, too.  You're becoming strident and
hostile because I've questioned the integrity of your fig leaf.
You're making money however you can.  That's cool.  Just don't make
claims about knowing more than you could possibly know.

> > This is not a discussion of politics.  I brought him up as another
> > "expert" that no one who knew recent history would cite.  Financial
> > institutions claim that one of their areas of special expertise is
> > management of risk.  Recent history has proven that they are at best
> > unreliable.
>
> Unreliable in what field?
>
The history of risk estimation, whether in aerospace or finance, has
not been a happy one.  NASA, which has learned some bitter lessons
about risk analysis, has had mission failures because of software.  I
made a separate post about S&P screwing up a bond rating because of a
software error.

> > The difference is that most software risk is not unexpected and can be
> > eliminated.
>
> Oh, you start to get it!
>
Unfortunately, the methods that are available are rarely used.

> So contrary to financial markets which as Keith described nicely are
> Schroedinger Cat on Steroids, software is a good behaved beast.
>
Not really.  All the problems that NASA has encountered obtain.
People who *really* have to get it right (the fly by wire folks) don't
do business the way you apparently do.  Even then, everyone
understands that a plane could fall out of the sky because of a flight
control software problem.

> > As painful as the shuttle disasters were, we learned things from each
> > one.  They have resulted in changes in methodology, not drugs to
> > increase imaginative capacity.  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.
>
> And you know why? The behaviour is so typical that noone could be
declared
> immune to that.
>
Everyone does it, he explained, as he grabbed for himself as much as
he could.

Robert.