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

On May 27, 6:23 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s.usun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:

> >> And that's the fact. Otherwise they would be nonexistent.
>
> > They're merging and going out of business at an amazing rate.
>
> Another attempt at twist?
>
> Are they alive? Or not?
>
> > 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.
>
> Uh, oh.
>
What does that mean?  How old are *you*?  The Federal Reserve has done
things that at one time would have been unthinkable and they are just
the beginning.  Were it not for those actions, the financial markets
would have collapsed like a house of cards, as they almost did with
the failure of Long Term Capital Management.  I don't know about the
actions of other central banks, but I do know what's happened here.
Sovereign wealth funds have been pouring in capital to vulnerable
investment bankers who otherwise would have failed.  It's not in their
interests to see US financial markets collapse, either.  Did you get
to the chapter titled "Too Big to Fail" yet?

> >> > 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.
>
> Guy can't fly a plane so he can't drive a car -- it's the same idiotic
> logic.
>
So.  What you *should* have said was, "Financial institutions can't
estimate risk in their main line of business, but they know all about
software."  You mean: they're overconfident about their main line of
business, so they buy what you tell them about software.  The fact
that you're selling to financial institutions is something you never
should have presented as a credential.

> >> > 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?
>
> Oh, you "know" software security, medical production, software
production,
> markets, cold war,  Edsger Dijkstra, NASA, and whatever else. Typical of
> high school kid. And, unfortunately, like majority of high school kids
you
> can't read.
>

I can read and write very well.  Since English is probably not your
first language, I won't comment on your skills.  My first example was
of a failure of software used to estimate risk, not of the risk to the
software itself.  I very well knew that.  That's why I put stars
around the reference.  The fact that we are talking about software to
*****s risk and software that is susceptible to risk is apparently too
confusing for you, as you are imagining that I would confuse them as
you apparently want to.  The software that NASA used to *****s risk
got wildly optimistic answers.  That says there is something wrong
with the methodology to *****s risk.  I've also given examples of
failures of the software itself (flight control software for deep
space probes) and Standard and Poors giving AAA rating to securities
that probably should have had junk bond status.  That's *three*
different kinds of software.  I hope you can keep them straight.

>
> > You are swimming against the tide.
>
> LOL!
>
The huge pile of software that's out there was, largely, built to
exploit the capacities of one-processor systems.  One-processor
systems are going the way of the dinosaur.  The problems with multi-
processor programming are fundamental and make the problem of software
bugs much, much worse.  Something has to give.

> > 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.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> You're simply piece of the work. Go on! Keep invenitng what others have
> said.
>
> Current methods do work. It doesn't change the fact that these methods
do
> evolve. But they evolve to make software production more effective not
to
> satisfy some guy with high school kid attitude and black-white views.
>
No one has to satisfy me about anything.  As to the methods of
software production evolving, that's laughable.  What we see are heaps
and heaps of tools and languages, none of them fundamentally better
than what's been in place for decades.  I just don't know what to say
to someone who says, "Current methods do work."  Manifestly, they
don't.

Robert.