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

Robert Myers wrote:
>> Your constant insisting on comparability of risk estimation in long
term
>> capital and software only shows your lack of clue.
>>
> Look.
> 
> I didn't go there.

Of course you did. Thats you not me who can't see the obvious difference.

> You did. 

Nonsense.

> 
> You said the people you work for know what they're doing.

Because it's obvious. They would be nonexistant if they didn't.

Besides I do not work for American financial company, so your nonsense
does
not apply even if there would be no difference between markets and
software.

> You didn't 
> hedge.

As I do not need. I'm talking about obvious things.

> The way you put it out there has to be one of the most 
> laughable claims ever made, given the timing. 

It might be laughable only for some clueless dolts.


> Your "oh, but I didn't 
> really mean that" hardly goes with your gunslinger swagger.

I meant exactly what I meant. Your hilarious lack of clue and messing
apples
and oranges doesn't change that,


>> > The funny thing about risk, like NASA's estimates of risks to the
>> > shuttles, is that you learn that the methodology is faulty only after
>> > a catastrophic failure.  A statement of confidence about handicapping
>> > of risk should tell you to find another handicapper.
>>
>> So please show me that catastrophic failure of risk estimation of
>> software.

[...]
> That's a
> failure of *risk analysis* software. 

ROTFL!

You're piece of work. You apparently can't even read. I asked clearly
about
risk estimation *of* software, not risk estimation software.

You keep inventing more and more nonsense to cover your lack of clue
instead
of facing the fact that it has been exposed.


>> >> 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.
>>
>> > Big changes are on the way.  Maybe later rather than sooner, but they
>> > will come.  If you're going to plug into the internet, you will be
>> > regulated.  I'm not happy about that, but I see no way around it.
>>
>> The problem is that you don't see. Others do. Fortunately world doesn't
>> care about one's Roberts imaginations.
>>
> Look.  You are either so wrapped up in what you're doing that you
> can't see what's going on around you, or you're playing stupid.  This
> isn't a security forum, so there's no point in discussing the nearly
> universal agonizing over security threats due to software
> vulnerability.

Uh, oh.

> Financial software, online or off, is subject to the same kinds of
> problems that NASA discovered.

Yeah. The finacial software will explode releasing about equivalent of 1kt
TNT of energy due to failed o-ring.

> Correctness analysis wouldn't help 
> with some of those problems, to be sure.

Good you accept that.


>> >> > 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.
>>
>> > There's nothing hypothetical about what I presented.  All the
>> > incidents I've described have already occurred.
>>
>> What? Like national grid being shut down by terrorists? Do you also
look
>> for Bin Laden under your bed every evening?
>>
> What the shuttle disasters and the World Trade Center attack taught is
> that there are more ways for things to go wrong than you can think of

So your proposed way of (not) making a software would not help either.

> and that apparently acceptable risks can have enormous consequences.

Risk of loosing shuttle and astronauts was and still is the "acceptable"
risk for NASA. The risk of major terrorist attack was known for long time
before 9/11. As few soviet atomic suitcases are believed to be missing,
the
risk of even greater disaster is still non zero. 
But there is also a significant risk of simply getting killed in traffic
accident, and that risk is much greater than becoming a victim of
terrorist
attack. But life must go on, we simply must accept that risk. Not
accepting
them and hiding somewhere is widely regarded as mental disease.

Sebastian Kaliszewski
-- 
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang