1. Your strawman is a result of your abject failure to comprehend my post.
Ineffectually perjorative...regrets that you weren't interested in specifying what it is you believe I misunderstood.
2. If you believe AGW is based on nothing more than a correlation you're wrong.
No, I do not believe that. And I didn't say that at all. I suspect that you posited that possibility in order to cast me as one of your demons.
In my experience abuse of the phrase in question is highly correlated with AGW psudeo-skeptics, creationists, and anti-science crackpots in general.
Just out of interest...have you seen any AGW 'skeptics', or are they all implicitly 'pseudo-skeptics'? Is it easy for you to tell the difference, and if so, I would be interested in knowing how?
Anyway, the content and tenor of your response do suggest to me that I did not misunderstand you (although I may not have understood you quite the way you wanted me to).
As scientists, in the absence of empirically knowing something, we have a responsibility to withhold belief. With that responsibility comes the humility of our ignorance, and our inability to make assertions where we might wish we could. Perhaps you are less ignorant than me in some areas, and can therefore make assertions (and thereby hold beliefs) where I cannot. But your voice and arguments suggest to me that you lack the due modesty of a diligent scientist, and you show an unhealthy distaste for skepticism (which should be the background color of all things scientific). Perhaps it is just your distaste for ignorance? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying?
Your remark regarding "correlation is not causation":
Personally I think it's a soundbite that states the obvious and is often abused.
Personally, I have never seen the correlation-is-not-causation comment used in a case where causation was established or compellingly indicated. As a "soundbite," it is invariably overshadowed by a much louder soundbite, a story headline, that has the unfortunate effect of spreading FUD precisely because the correlation-is-not-causation point is not widely understood.
I have become increasingly suspicious of people such as yourself who suggest that the correlation-is-not-causation point is overused. We need only look at that how often correlation is REPORTED, how unlikely it is that such reported cases are subsequently demonstrated to have causation, to conclude that except in the narrower realms of research, THERE IS PROBABLY NOTHING PARTICULARLY USEFUL LEARNED HERE.
Current political views of climate are being widely shaped by correlation that leads to INFERENCE, and in so many of those cases, causation is not established. Add to that the counter-scientific hubris of believing that correlation is so "strong" as to practically obviate the need for establishing causation, and suddenly, we have see the move to ACTION without causation. I have this nagging feeling you may be okay with that, which would explain the urgency of your argument here. Just be aware that you are not advancing the cause of science, and to the contrary, you are trying to diminish an important point to which people insufficiently subscribe.
Correlation is not causation. IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT VINYL FLOORING CAUSES AUTISM. And I'll even make a statistically educated statement that isn't based in any of the facts of this particular story, but in the facts of history: IT IS UNLIKELY THAT VINYL FLOORING CAUSES AUTISM.
No matter how much popular attention and intellect may seize on a particular issue, the more practical/limiting physical forces will ultimately come to bear in action. Public policy may attempt to drive capital toward climate control, but the decisions to do so can only happen through proxies, people, face to face. So there will be government guys telling capitalist guys where they want the work to go, and they will make their points about global warming with all the concern for humanity and certainty of opportunity that they can muster for this issue.
The issue will, however, rightfully compete with other concerns for humanity and certainty of opportunity. And that competition will, for its own good reason, largely limit the resources that will go to climate control.
You, like the grandparent, offer nothing to specifically relate the "Verizon router" to the specific vulnerability being discussed.
All you have described here is the widely-known and very generic vulnerability of sending clear text credentials over an unsecured network (to a router in this case). I suspect you were aware of that vulnerability well before you read this article. Your point would be similarly understood and elementary to understanding Slashdot readers. To non-understanding readers, the grandparent's unqualified remarks do exactly as you deny: spread FUD.
(BTW: That "install sniffer" requirement is much larger and riskier than is likely to be accepted by a botnet operator.)
Congratulations in having established your distaste for Verizon. Otherwise, you have ignored any of the specifics of this vulnerability and established NO likelihood of vulnerability in Verizon's modems.
Well...having been modded up as you have, you are clearly in good company. Perhaps you can all get together and share more of this kind of wisdom? If you put your heads together, you might be able to protect Verizon modems from ghosts and evil spirits.
Do you really think I am a "radical intellectual"? Perhaps I am not? Could it be that I'm just a run-of-the-mill business person who likes intellectual property laws because of the ways in which they seem to conveniently facilitate the formation of wealth and capital? Perhaps I am not a radical, but actually, a not-particularly-studious product of the status quo?
If you believe that music distribution, artistic variety, consumer cost and access is "flourishing" because of a handful of low level civil lawsuits...
No, I do not believe that. And yet, you labored over my words, mis-inferred and embellished so as to refute a viewpoint of your own creation.
I even agree with significant parts of what you say despite the concocted pretense with which you suggest otherwise.
I really just want you to know that your remarks here are breathtaking. If you find that guy with whom you are arguing, please let him know that I too think he is a jerk. And if you'll allow that little bit of common ground, I won't assume that you think me any less of a moron.
the Obama/Biden administration would be tools of the RIAA
It is interesting that the Administration is described as being a "tool", and not only that, but of being tool of an institution.
This twisted rhetoric not only ignores the the essential fact that institutions are tools of people, but also denies the possibility, even probability, that the RIAA effectively represents at least some of the opinions of the President.
To put it another way: the RIAA is a tool of people like myself who want to see aggressive promotion of intellectual property rights, and with only minor regret, accept the minuscule number of strong-handed actions being used to oppose the masses who have been pretty much thoughtless about the merits (or even demerits) of intellectual property theories/practices.
Slashdot is an endless forum for knocking RIAA practices, declaring them as being ineffectual at best and evil at worst. But by my own observations, I see the typical person of 2009 actually considering the legality of their media consumption, and even having a preference for legal practices (even though they still commonly engage in violation of intellectual property rights). As I recall, these legal considerations were typically non-existent in Joe Q. Public 8 years ago. The shift in attitude is not a result of increased virtue, schooling, nor for sure because of the advice of Slashdot pundits. It is, quite simply, some semi-intelligent byproducts of awareness that comes from the buzz surrounding the irrational fear of being prosecuted, even though the likelihood of that happening is so small as to be safely ignored.
Music distribution is flourishing. Artistic variety is flourishing. Consumer cost is dropping. Consumer access is rising. And intellectual property awareness is on the rise too. Those are all good things.
Enjoy flogging your bogeyman (read: the RIAA). He is my tool.
May the American People be forgiven, for when faced with a big mess, they chose Justice over better ways to reduce the mess.
$170 Billion dollars of problem $170 Million dollars of justice
"Hey...are you a talented mortgage underwriter? How would you like to come help us work out our mess at AIG? The American People want your help, and will have your back. We're all about what's RIGHT, so come join us in our effort."
You are quite correct. And that's why when our President says he will deliver to the American people a transparent government, he is disingenuously pandering to their impractical aspirations.
For many year, organized criminals in the U.S. functioned with impunity. Even though the same unseemly guys were always around when the law was being broken, there was never satisfactory evidence to prove that they, themselves, had broken the law.
RICO advanced the law by recognizing and identifying patterns of criminal activity, and then asserting that the people regularly associated with those activities were guilty of racketeering. These laws have worked well in our efforts to deter organized crime.
All Swiss banking activities aren't intended to skirt the law, but then, neither were John Gotti's activities. But the purpose and benefits of Swiss secrecy laws are, by patterns of their use, obvious. No, the banker didn't evade taxes. He simply engaged in practices carefully crafted to enable others to do so. By pattern and association, under RICO, the banker could be charged with racketeering because he repeatedly and specifically enables the practice of money laundering.
So you can tell me that Swiss bankers aren't running huge scale rackets. But that incenses me. To quote Judge Judy: "Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining."
The Swiss bankers are becoming "cooperative" now in hopes that the rest of the advanced world of criminal justice doesn't finish painting the full picture of Swiss banking "ethics." The white collars on their shirts are the only outstanding signs of cleanliness there.
Inner Fence *assumed* they would continue to receive a service for which they had no contract and paid no fees. Further, on top of that unsupported and inequitable assumption, they *sold* a product in which they extended *assurances* of continued service.
Inner Fence now points their customers to Google as being the party responsible for the loss of service. But it seems clear that Inner Fence had no basis for assuring delivery of their service to their customers. They simply took the money, left Google holding the bag, and now dodge their full responsibility.
Hey Inner Fence...do your customers look like they have the letters S-T-U-P-I-D painted on their foreheads?
That assertion is, of course, my informal opinion based on my own observations. I arrived at at after being repeatedly surprised by people who most certainly would never disparage someone on the basis of the commonly identified classes: race, color, ethnicity, etc. Even there, I find attitudes toward religions (theistic or atheistic) to challenge the flexibility of many otherwise broad-minded people. If you then throw in sentiments about The French, A Man's Man, Liberals, People Who Keep Dirty Bathrooms, Republicans, Masculine-looking Dykes, and Lipsticky Platinum Blondes With Big Boob Jobs...well...a majority can find revulsion in there somewhere.
I regret my own bigotry (and do try hard to "avoid" it, as you suggest). But my opinion as to the incidence of bigotry in the general population is not one example of my bigotry. It is, I think, a very reasonable inference based on very reasonable observations.
I fully agree with your point, brief and unexplained though it may be.
The parent's sweeping [mis]characterization of military personnel reflects a kind of bigotry that is common and, in many circles, acceptable here in the U.S. (and elsewhere). And yet, his ugly slur is no more correct than one he might make about African Americans or any other broadly defined population. Alas, such broad sweeping bigotry lives in the hearts of most people, and is only mitigated by their learned sensitivity ("forgiveness") to particular sub-classes.
Anyway, thanks for saying it the way I felt about it.
I first suggest you get rid of the oil company and foreign oil company interests OUT OF YOUR BOARD ROOM?
I don't see that anybody on the GM board has anything to do with an oil company. Perhaps you can tell me more specifically whom you are talking about? (Or is your remark just uninformed rhetoric?)
It amazes me the lengths propagandists will go to to obfuscate simple questions of economics. The electric company charges me per Killowatt Hour. How much will the solar people charge me?
The day I see them CHARGE a competitive rate (rather than SPECULATE what it will cost, or avoid stating the KwH cost) will be the day I understand solar to be competitive.
According to this page it seems that essentials like the "Linux support package" are not yet available ("Coming Soon"). So would that be like REAL SOON NOW?
Those decisions aren't matters of science; they are matters of policy (and morality and practicality and other things).
But I don't appreciate you throwing fresh mortar onto the already well-paved slippery slope that pretends to connect science to policy. You should be countering the majority-held myth of a thing called "scientific consensus." You seem to understand this well enough to teach the truth, but instead, it looks like you favor taking advantage of ignorance to make a quick dash for More Moral Ends.
Your point is righteous. Science recedes into the background.
My experience has been that companies behave very pragmatically with their valued customers, and that this pragmatism is rarely limited by stated policies. I question your willingness to accept the "It's-over-for-Windows-3.11" policy at face value, as in doing so, you conveniently ignore the likelihood of a simpler, less expensive solution to the stated problem.
Consider this from Microsoft regarding end-of-life of its "desktop products":
Lifecycle and Licensing FAQ
1. Does the Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Policy affect how long I can legally use a Microsoft operating system after I've licensed it?
No, this policy only affects the ability to obtain new licenses through certain channels, the time period and the way that Microsoft will provide product support for each operating system. The ability to use a Windows desktop operating system after it has been legally licensed is unaffected...
Considering Linux's credentials as an embedded OS, this news could very well indicate the possibility of more migrations in the pipeline.
Yeah. That's a real good reason to take something that works, and to spend a whole lot of time and money getting it ported over to Linux so that...it...ummmm...works?
Overhead for an O.S. to manage memory and I/O contention rises dramatically *way* down in the CPU-count scale (like around 8 CPUs). It is one thing to let those CPUs be available to the exclusive use of a particular CPU-aware application, such as a custom video frame rendering app. But give an application-ignorant O.S. the job of keeping processes from stepping on each other in a 256-way box and you'll see a box whose primary workload is lock and wait management.
It's not surprising that "big box" manufacturers like IBM and HP charge so much for their high-end gear. It takes particularly tailored efforts and certain types of workloads to drive performance out of those things, and even there, performance tends to fall dramatically after 32 CPUs. It's not surprising that they employ partitioning and virtualization to divide and conquer the use of so many CPUs rather than actually treat them like one big box.
Of course, there will always be a number of consumers who will pay for Big-CPU-Count Bragging Rights, ignoring the fact that the last 50% of their CPUs deliver less incremental performance than the first 10%.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting...that you believe I "lost." Did you win?
Anyway, good luck with all that.
Ineffectually perjorative...regrets that you weren't interested in specifying what it is you believe I misunderstood.
No, I do not believe that. And I didn't say that at all. I suspect that you posited that possibility in order to cast me as one of your demons.
Just out of interest...have you seen any AGW 'skeptics', or are they all implicitly 'pseudo-skeptics'? Is it easy for you to tell the difference, and if so, I would be interested in knowing how?
Anyway, the content and tenor of your response do suggest to me that I did not misunderstand you (although I may not have understood you quite the way you wanted me to).
As scientists, in the absence of empirically knowing something, we have a responsibility to withhold belief. With that responsibility comes the humility of our ignorance, and our inability to make assertions where we might wish we could. Perhaps you are less ignorant than me in some areas, and can therefore make assertions (and thereby hold beliefs) where I cannot. But your voice and arguments suggest to me that you lack the due modesty of a diligent scientist, and you show an unhealthy distaste for skepticism (which should be the background color of all things scientific). Perhaps it is just your distaste for ignorance? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying?
Personally, I have never seen the correlation-is-not-causation comment used in a case where causation was established or compellingly indicated. As a "soundbite," it is invariably overshadowed by a much louder soundbite, a story headline, that has the unfortunate effect of spreading FUD precisely because the correlation-is-not-causation point is not widely understood.
I have become increasingly suspicious of people such as yourself who suggest that the correlation-is-not-causation point is overused. We need only look at that how often correlation is REPORTED, how unlikely it is that such reported cases are subsequently demonstrated to have causation, to conclude that except in the narrower realms of research, THERE IS PROBABLY NOTHING PARTICULARLY USEFUL LEARNED HERE.
Current political views of climate are being widely shaped by correlation that leads to INFERENCE, and in so many of those cases, causation is not established. Add to that the counter-scientific hubris of believing that correlation is so "strong" as to practically obviate the need for establishing causation, and suddenly, we have see the move to ACTION without causation. I have this nagging feeling you may be okay with that, which would explain the urgency of your argument here. Just be aware that you are not advancing the cause of science, and to the contrary, you are trying to diminish an important point to which people insufficiently subscribe.
Correlation is not causation. IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT VINYL FLOORING CAUSES AUTISM. And I'll even make a statistically educated statement that isn't based in any of the facts of this particular story, but in the facts of history: IT IS UNLIKELY THAT VINYL FLOORING CAUSES AUTISM.
The itch of the Republicrat must always be scratched, to carve out the partisan difference, even when there is none...even when it is "immaterial".
Let me guess...if you're a Democrat, then you strongly favor bipartisanism [this year]. Yes?
uggh.
My Other Laptop Is A Kaypro II
No matter how much popular attention and intellect may seize on a particular issue, the more practical/limiting physical forces will ultimately come to bear in action. Public policy may attempt to drive capital toward climate control, but the decisions to do so can only happen through proxies, people, face to face. So there will be government guys telling capitalist guys where they want the work to go, and they will make their points about global warming with all the concern for humanity and certainty of opportunity that they can muster for this issue.
The issue will, however, rightfully compete with other concerns for humanity and certainty of opportunity. And that competition will, for its own good reason, largely limit the resources that will go to climate control.
You, like the grandparent, offer nothing to specifically relate the "Verizon router" to the specific vulnerability being discussed.
All you have described here is the widely-known and very generic vulnerability of sending clear text credentials over an unsecured network (to a router in this case). I suspect you were aware of that vulnerability well before you read this article. Your point would be similarly understood and elementary to understanding Slashdot readers. To non-understanding readers, the grandparent's unqualified remarks do exactly as you deny: spread FUD.
(BTW: That "install sniffer" requirement is much larger and riskier than is likely to be accepted by a botnet operator.)
bart
Congratulations in having established your distaste for Verizon. Otherwise, you have ignored any of the specifics of this vulnerability and established NO likelihood of vulnerability in Verizon's modems.
Well...having been modded up as you have, you are clearly in good company. Perhaps you can all get together and share more of this kind of wisdom? If you put your heads together, you might be able to protect Verizon modems from ghosts and evil spirits.
Do you really think I am a "radical intellectual"? Perhaps I am not? Could it be that I'm just a run-of-the-mill business person who likes intellectual property laws because of the ways in which they seem to conveniently facilitate the formation of wealth and capital? Perhaps I am not a radical, but actually, a not-particularly-studious product of the status quo?
No, I do not believe that. And yet, you labored over my words, mis-inferred and embellished so as to refute a viewpoint of your own creation.
I even agree with significant parts of what you say despite the concocted pretense with which you suggest otherwise.
I really just want you to know that your remarks here are breathtaking. If you find that guy with whom you are arguing, please let him know that I too think he is a jerk. And if you'll allow that little bit of common ground, I won't assume that you think me any less of a moron.
(and something about hubris?)
It is interesting that the Administration is described as being a "tool", and not only that, but of being tool of an institution.
This twisted rhetoric not only ignores the the essential fact that institutions are tools of people, but also denies the possibility, even probability, that the RIAA effectively represents at least some of the opinions of the President.
To put it another way: the RIAA is a tool of people like myself who want to see aggressive promotion of intellectual property rights, and with only minor regret, accept the minuscule number of strong-handed actions being used to oppose the masses who have been pretty much thoughtless about the merits (or even demerits) of intellectual property theories/practices.
Slashdot is an endless forum for knocking RIAA practices, declaring them as being ineffectual at best and evil at worst. But by my own observations, I see the typical person of 2009 actually considering the legality of their media consumption, and even having a preference for legal practices (even though they still commonly engage in violation of intellectual property rights). As I recall, these legal considerations were typically non-existent in Joe Q. Public 8 years ago. The shift in attitude is not a result of increased virtue, schooling, nor for sure because of the advice of Slashdot pundits. It is, quite simply, some semi-intelligent byproducts of awareness that comes from the buzz surrounding the irrational fear of being prosecuted, even though the likelihood of that happening is so small as to be safely ignored.
Music distribution is flourishing. Artistic variety is flourishing. Consumer cost is dropping. Consumer access is rising. And intellectual property awareness is on the rise too. Those are all good things.
Enjoy flogging your bogeyman (read: the RIAA). He is my tool.
May the American People be forgiven, for when faced with a big mess, they chose Justice over better ways to reduce the mess.
$170 Billion dollars of problem
$170 Million dollars of justice
"Hey...are you a talented mortgage underwriter? How would you like to come help us work out our mess at AIG? The American People want your help, and will have your back. We're all about what's RIGHT, so come join us in our effort."
uggh.
You are quite correct. And that's why when our President says he will deliver to the American people a transparent government, he is disingenuously pandering to their impractical aspirations.
For many year, organized criminals in the U.S. functioned with impunity. Even though the same unseemly guys were always around when the law was being broken, there was never satisfactory evidence to prove that they, themselves, had broken the law.
Then came the RICO laws.
RICO advanced the law by recognizing and identifying patterns of criminal activity, and then asserting that the people regularly associated with those activities were guilty of racketeering. These laws have worked well in our efforts to deter organized crime.
All Swiss banking activities aren't intended to skirt the law, but then, neither were John Gotti's activities. But the purpose and benefits of Swiss secrecy laws are, by patterns of their use, obvious. No, the banker didn't evade taxes. He simply engaged in practices carefully crafted to enable others to do so. By pattern and association, under RICO, the banker could be charged with racketeering because he repeatedly and specifically enables the practice of money laundering.
So you can tell me that Swiss bankers aren't running huge scale rackets. But that incenses me. To quote Judge Judy: "Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining."
The Swiss bankers are becoming "cooperative" now in hopes that the rest of the advanced world of criminal justice doesn't finish painting the full picture of Swiss banking "ethics." The white collars on their shirts are the only outstanding signs of cleanliness there.
But both of these truisms run up against a popular strategy:
So, yes, in this regard, many people's foreheads are mislabeled as blank.
Inner Fence *assumed* they would continue to receive a service for which they had no contract and paid no fees. Further, on top of that unsupported and inequitable assumption, they *sold* a product in which they extended *assurances* of continued service.
Inner Fence now points their customers to Google as being the party responsible for the loss of service. But it seems clear that Inner Fence had no basis for assuring delivery of their service to their customers. They simply took the money, left Google holding the bag, and now dodge their full responsibility.
Hey Inner Fence...do your customers look like they have the letters S-T-U-P-I-D painted on their foreheads?
That assertion is, of course, my informal opinion based on my own observations. I arrived at at after being repeatedly surprised by people who most certainly would never disparage someone on the basis of the commonly identified classes: race, color, ethnicity, etc. Even there, I find attitudes toward religions (theistic or atheistic) to challenge the flexibility of many otherwise broad-minded people. If you then throw in sentiments about The French, A Man's Man, Liberals, People Who Keep Dirty Bathrooms, Republicans, Masculine-looking Dykes, and Lipsticky Platinum Blondes With Big Boob Jobs...well...a majority can find revulsion in there somewhere.
I regret my own bigotry (and do try hard to "avoid" it, as you suggest). But my opinion as to the incidence of bigotry in the general population is not one example of my bigotry. It is, I think, a very reasonable inference based on very reasonable observations.
bart
I never served...a fact of which I am not proud.
I fully agree with your point, brief and unexplained though it may be.
The parent's sweeping [mis]characterization of military personnel reflects a kind of bigotry that is common and, in many circles, acceptable here in the U.S. (and elsewhere). And yet, his ugly slur is no more correct than one he might make about African Americans or any other broadly defined population. Alas, such broad sweeping bigotry lives in the hearts of most people, and is only mitigated by their learned sensitivity ("forgiveness") to particular sub-classes.
Anyway, thanks for saying it the way I felt about it.
I don't see that anybody on the GM board has anything to do with an oil company. Perhaps you can tell me more specifically whom you are talking about? (Or is your remark just uninformed rhetoric?)
It amazes me the lengths propagandists will go to to obfuscate simple questions of economics. The electric company charges me per Killowatt Hour. How much will the solar people charge me?
The day I see them CHARGE a competitive rate (rather than SPECULATE what it will cost, or avoid stating the KwH cost) will be the day I understand solar to be competitive.
<
According to this page it seems that essentials like the "Linux support package" are not yet available ("Coming Soon"). So would that be like REAL SOON NOW?
<bart
Sorry. I thought your original remark had something to do with science.
Nevermind. Whatever.
Those decisions aren't matters of science; they are matters of policy (and morality and practicality and other things).
But I don't appreciate you throwing fresh mortar onto the already well-paved slippery slope that pretends to connect science to policy. You should be countering the majority-held myth of a thing called "scientific consensus." You seem to understand this well enough to teach the truth, but instead, it looks like you favor taking advantage of ignorance to make a quick dash for More Moral Ends.
Your point is righteous. Science recedes into the background.
Consider this from Microsoft regarding end-of-life of its "desktop products":
Lifecycle and Licensing FAQ
1. Does the Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Policy affect how long I can legally use a Microsoft operating system after I've licensed it?
No, this policy only affects the ability to obtain new licenses through certain channels, the time period and the way that Microsoft will provide product support for each operating system. The ability to use a Windows desktop operating system after it has been legally licensed is unaffected...
Yeah. That's a real good reason to take something that works, and to spend a whole lot of time and money getting it ported over to Linux so that...it...ummmm...works?
Such is the folly of religion.
Go away. I'm trying to watch my movie.
...but 256 core PERFORMANCE is not.
Overhead for an O.S. to manage memory and I/O contention rises dramatically *way* down in the CPU-count scale (like around 8 CPUs). It is one thing to let those CPUs be available to the exclusive use of a particular CPU-aware application, such as a custom video frame rendering app. But give an application-ignorant O.S. the job of keeping processes from stepping on each other in a 256-way box and you'll see a box whose primary workload is lock and wait management.
It's not surprising that "big box" manufacturers like IBM and HP charge so much for their high-end gear. It takes particularly tailored efforts and certain types of workloads to drive performance out of those things, and even there, performance tends to fall dramatically after 32 CPUs. It's not surprising that they employ partitioning and virtualization to divide and conquer the use of so many CPUs rather than actually treat them like one big box.
Of course, there will always be a number of consumers who will pay for Big-CPU-Count Bragging Rights, ignoring the fact that the last 50% of their CPUs deliver less incremental performance than the first 10%.