Slashdot Mirror
Intel CEO Paul Otellini Retiring
An anonymous reader writes with a quick bit from a press release about Intel's CEO retiring: "Intel Corporation today announced that the company's president and CEO, Paul Otellini, has decided to retire as an officer and director at the company's annual stockholders' meeting in May, starting an orderly leadership transition over the next six months. Otellini's decision to retire will bring to a close a remarkable career of nearly 40 years of continuous service to the company and its stockholders."
Will see the future trend ...?
Or OP! I got the last post. Nah nah nah nah boo boo!!!
He stepped down just before 40 years so we could make 39.9876 year pentium jokes.
good luck to the future.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
This man raised the personal computing industry from birth to adolescence. The entire world would be a different place (for better or worse) without Otellini's Intel. Now that's an accomplishment worth carrying into retirement.
"For myself and my stock options I'd like to thank you all and wish you all the best of luck. Forward all mail to the Cayman Islands."
Notice how we haven't seen them in ads for years.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Can we give it a rest for 3 years or so?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Maybe I'm just feeding trolls on this (and honestly with the hyperbole in your post, I can't help but think that) but I don't see it that way. I generally lean more towards the right, at least fiscally, and Romney wasn't our last chance, and Obama is not some kind of super red socialist. By most objectives, he's still fairly right of center and a lot of his policies aren't something that hasn't been proposed by Republicans at some point with in the last half-century.
If anything, Otellini was smart enough to play both sides of the isle, ensuring that no matter who came out on top, IBM had friends with benefits or markers to call in. And honestly, who cares who he supported or endorsed. If you're basing your entire assessment of a person on who they endorse for President, it makes you look narrow-minded.
I nominate Bill (aka William) Stokes to take over for this position.
He certainly cares about the company and doing what's right more than others seem to!
Please. I'm an Obama supporter/contributor and even I recognize that the "business advisory board on jobs" was just photo-ops for the WH, and a chance to gain connections/audition for a cabinet level job for the CEOs. It's not like anybody's mind will be opened or changed as a result of these fascinating discussions.
Sanjay Jha is out of MOT. He'd be my pick for a replacement. You heard it here first!
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
If your ancestors hadn't been kidnapped from Africa, then you might be considered property in 2012 considering slavery is alive and well in many regions of Africa right now...
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
IBM? Otellini is Intel's CEO, not IBM.
Intel is pretty corporate, and that's like a crime here on /. But for anyone old enough to remember or fool enough to listen, when it's all said and done this guy's track record has been damn close to paved in gold.
No, I don't mean Intel's track record with the Peruvian Jackalope, Global Coating or whatever axe you have to grind. I mean his job of being part of, contributing to and guiding a very large and important ship. Much of it before the average /.r could read.
Having been Z80 guy, a 6502 guy and a 68k guy, and also a guy writing endless apps in the Intel space and building endless machines, when it's all said and done, if your last words are anything other than "thank you", you're a punk.
Safe travels Paul.
Lean towards the right fiscally? In short, you lean towards massive deficits, high defense spending and play ignorant to both when a Democrat is in office, right? The GOP is responsible for the lion's share of deficit and produced far fewer jobs in this nation's history. It's a vile, ignorant, POS party, full of self-entitled white trash who raped the nation of its wealth because ``leaning towards the right, fiscally'' folks continue voting in this slime.
Get educated, dude. Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
I'm sorry, but what? Depending on who's on your "founding fathers" list, many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves. I'm not going to question your upbringing or education, but whitewashing a somewhat embarrassing side of history is ridiculous. Call for what it is.
This guy will go down as a footnote. Andy Grove is the guy who made Intel a giant. And I'm rooting for AMD.
Yodeling.
*Goes out and shoots some girl named Heidi in the head*
Are you one of those Libertarian asshats that cloaks your sociopathic tendencies in ideology?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Remember the Alamo
Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
This is true
many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves
So is this.
It's almost like the founding fathers were a disparate group of people, each with their own opinions and perspectives, and trying to paint the entire group as either ruthless slavers or crusading abolitionists is painting with too wide a brush.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Good thing we got the collapse out of the way first, then?
I worked at Intel for 11 years and met Otellini a couple of times. First of all, he was a great guy. But much more on point, he was a clear and level-headed thinker who asked the right questions, and role-modeled the best of Intel culture in every way. He rescued Intel from the aftermath of the train wreck that was Craig Barrett, and rebuilt the company and restored the company culture.
Also note, Otellini was the first Intel CEO who came up through marketing. That was an important transition for the company in many ways, and the company is much better off for it.
I think it's just time to give up any logical argument until it all goes to shit...
Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms.
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
Preventing the collapse of companies that needed to collapse will lead to the collapse of the entire economy.
Troll maybe, but true.
The lot of most blacks in their own countries isn't very good.
... Intel used to be nimble --- and I'm talking about the time of 8088/8086 up to 80386/80387.
When Pentium came to market, Intel were so successful that most of its competitors just got out of the game, and allowed Intel to get bigger and bigger until they became the 800lb gorilla.
What Intel is facing is a market that's totally different from what it had faced for the past 30 years - embedded processor from ARM.
Intel's Atom processors was their reply to ARM and we all know how successful Atom turned out to be.
As if it's not enough, Intel is again shooting its own feet.
Intel is gambling with its own mainstream CPU - We have seen what they did to their Ivy Bridge, which is not that impressive as compared to the previous Sandy Bridge platform.
And their next gen CPU, the Haswell - Intel is actually trying to move Haswell to the direction of ARM - by making them "power saving".
What Intel really needs is to pursue a course up the curve - by making their processor much more powerful, not by making them weaker (albeit power saving).
Intel needs to come up with chips that have more cores which runs at much higher speed.
The real threat to Intel is not from ARM.
The real threat to Intel is from Nvidia / ATI.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
And that is why they did not address slavery in the constitution in the first place.
Libretarians are the party of liberty.
Tea Party is the fiscally and socially conservative party,
Democrats and Republicans both are Huge government controlling you.
Democrats want a bunch of money to spend on green energy, unions and social welfare.
Republicans want a bunch of money for defense contractors and oil.
They both are the bane of freedom.
The biggest threat to freedom though are the lazy entitled voters. Freedom is hard, dangerous and takes work.
Americans are no longer those types of people.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Heh. Bending over for large corporations and the rich is not "fiscally conservative", nor is it "fiscally responsible". Those are myths perpetuated by corporations and the rich.
regain the former glory that the founding fathers intended.
So you like wearing wigs. eh?
Or were you talking about just a select part of what you consider "former glory" and use "founding fathers" as an argument to give your personal views a false sense of authority?
On the other hand, if you are talking about returning the entire state of the US back a few centuries, I'm all with you; they didn't have computers back in those former glory times.
Claiming something is right based on some decissions made by politicians for a society centuries ago (I guess politicians back then were just as infallible as they are now) is at least as useless as claiming something's right based on some holy scripture.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
They did, by writing language in to provide for the abolition of the slave trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves
The goal of the Constitutional Convention was to form a stronger Federal Union, which they archived. Leaving the status quo with Slavery was required to form a stronger union that could one day abolish the abhorrent practice.
No, he is one of those Libertarian asshats who are actually all Social Conservatives in disguise.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I got and actively use my freedoms. I am living in Norway. Democratic socialism works fine in the Nordic countries, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, NZ, Canada, and other plases.
How funny. Prior to 1981, America was the tops. Since 1981, when you neo-cons came to power and controlled, America has fallen from grace during reagan and then under W. And yet, idiots like you want to return to those same failed policies with an idiot like Romney. You provide proof that Education in America is severely degraded. We need to re-start the teaching of logic, otherwise, we will end up with more failures such as yourself.
Claiming something is right based on some decissions made by politicians for a society centuries ago (I guess politicians back then were just as infallible as they are now) is at least as useless as claiming something's right based on some holy scripture.
There's a huge difference between men who fought for their country with their own lives and principles and then became politicians and the current crop of career politicians. But go right ahead and setup your strawman.
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
I don't know about the X10 part, it sort of depends what issues are most important to you. Both Republicans and Democrats push for a nanny state in different ways. Since you're obviously already aware of the Republican side, I'll just list a few Democrat ways:
- Restriction of free speech in terms of political donations.
- Restriction of free speech by categorizing it as "hate speech".
- Restriction on commerce -- for example, even if you are an experienced hairdresser, you can't just set up a hair salon in New Orleans (or similarly, drive a taxi in NYC, etc.) due to burdensome and asphyxiating regulations.
- Restriction on commerce -- unions are empowered by law to effectively tax all their non-union coworkers in many states, effectively taking other people's money (and donating a bunch of it to the Democratic party, isn't that convenient?).
- Restriction on personal accumulation of wealth -- forced redistribution appears to be openly embraced by the Democrats these days.
In general, the Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government. They've fallen down on the job in many ways, but in that respect they're still a lot better than the Democrats. Obama wants the government to grow without limit and encompass many more areas of our life in this country. To the extent that his vision is realized, the nanny state will grow.
If you get in debt to someone, that person will gain the ability to control your life. If more and more people are beholden to the government, the government will control their lives. Government paying for your healthcare? Oh, then you won't complain if the government tells you not to smoke or eat trans fats anymore, right?
What in the world are you talking about? Do you know what "fiscally conservative" means? Maybe if you get more specific instead of using vague and weird figures of speech this will be clearer.
Romney would not have been as bad as Obama based on what? The man flip-flopped on basically everything and that's not a problem if it was clearly because new information changed his mindset, but it's clear he just did it for political expediency not some sort of principled, reasoned stance. How can you even trust a guy like that?
I hate having to do this, but partisan hacks like you will call me out on it if I don't explicitly state that I didn't vote for Obama (or Romney).
just wondering, hangning up and listening...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
the Republican party was the party in favor of freeing slaves while the democratic party wanted to keep them chained.
"Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin"
-the all knowing wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#History
Who was worse again?
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Aw, little butthurt white weenie. I am trying real hard not to laugh. But failing, tee hee.
That was a tiny little bump in the road compared to the day the US debt is called in.
"called in"? On what terms do you think the debt is?
The interest on the debt is basically funding the buying up of the US by foreign countries, a very bad thing, but not something they want to "call in".
If your ancestors hadn't been kidnapped from Africa, then you might be considered property in 2012 considering slavery is alive and well in many regions of Africa right now
And unless he's done some geneology research, his anscestors may have quite possibly been free people. Not all American blacks were slaves.
Free Martian Whores!
The civil rights movement was also headed up by the republicans. Unless parties have shifted around since I last looked, Richard Nixon was a republican, not a democrat, and it was southern democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.
If slashdot wants to live in its revisionist fantasy, though, thats fine.
Now that you mention it, "fiscally conservative" does seem like it could be a euphemism for "greedy bastard"...
Yes, Richard "The Jigaboos and Jews" Nixon. Seems like you're doing a bit of revising yourself. Southern Democrats are now... guess what? Southern Republicans! You don't hear anyone calling Alabama a blue state. Last I checked, Georgia had to be forced to integrate its schools. Blacks may have marched in Birmingham, Alabama, but don't fool yourself into thinking Republicans are some sort of vanguard of civil rights. Look at how they protest civil unions for homosexuals now.
I am not sure how I am a partisan hack because I do not dislike Romney as much as I dislike Obama.
Explain to me please.
that is more to do with the south being racist, while the dems have a black candidate so of course they voted for the white guy
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
So i just did a little flash research. If you had to guess, how do you suppose Georgia voted in the 1960 Presidential election? Turns out it was 63% in favor of Kennedy. In fact, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, all voted majority for Kennedy.
This whole discussion is ridiculous, I certainly will not imply that all democrats are racist, but to try to prove that the republican party has been the enemy of civil rights is frankly absurd.