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

On May 26, 11:58 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s.usun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> It is allways both ways. For many people untested drugs are the only
chance.
> If you extend testing even more then you delay drugs introduction even
more
> and more people won't live long enough to get the treatment.
>
Whatever you're paying attention to, it isn't the pharmaceutical
industry in the US.  We're not talking about high risk drugs for which
nothing else is available.  We're talking about what amount to
gigantic scams that have needlessly pushed people into riskier and
more profitable drugs.  More often than not, they are just elaborate
schemes for extracting money from the US Treasury.

> > 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.
>
> Go live in some socialistic country (there is still choce: eithre Cuba
or
> Northen Corea is good). You'll get your regulation there.
>
How long has it been since the Berlin Wall came down?  You're living
in the Wild West, and you have no business offering me invitations to
go anywhere.  I wasn't always happy about my involvement in the Cold
War, but I was damn well involved.  Who are you to insult me like
that?

> >> > 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.
>
> And that's the fact. Otherwise they would be nonexistent.
>
They're merging and going out of business at an amazing rate.  The
only reason they're still afloat is because the US Treasury and
Federal Reserve have done things they couldn't or wouldn't do in 1929.

> > When I pointed out the obvious, he changed
> > his assertion.
>
> Nope. Your idiotic apples to oranges comparison doesn't change my
assertion
> at all.
>
You said they know how to estimate risk.  Very, very famously, they do
not.  Maybe George Bush could get some other kind of war right.  He
won't have the chance to prove himself that way, and Long Term Capital
Management is no more.

> > 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.
>
> Whatever. These guys make money wether there is upturn or downturn. One
may
> like it or not, but their attitude "it's immoral to allow suckers to
keep
> their money" does work for them. And their risk estimation seems to work
> pretty well.
>
You're going to lecture me on the fundamentals of markets?  Oh, boy.
That's rich.  You got any other surprising things you learned at
school today?

> [...]
>
> > I needed an outrageous counter-example.  No one should be citing
> > financial institutions as competent to *****s risk
>
> You're demonstrating your utter cluelessness here (not to use stronger
> words)
>
Look.  You're in the business of kidding yourself.  Kid away.  Just
don't try to drag me into your con game.  Risk is risk,  and the
markets are having a very tough time of it because of exactly the kind
of over-confidence you are exhibiting.

>
> > 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.
>
> You have no clue about that workman****p at all, so all you talk about
that
> is nonsense.
>
You are swimming against the tide.  The energy that you've put into
this discussion is nothing short of amazing.  "Current methods of
writing and maintaining software are adequate" is a fascinating
claim.  You must live on another planet.

Robert.