Core 2 Duo CPUs suck donkey balls when you try to run them in 4-way and 8-way systems. Also, they will *never*, ever, ever integrate the core architecture with GPUs, like AMD is doing with ATI (see http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 640251">here for press on the topic). But yes, they are wonderful for single-socket desktops under 4GB. I wouldn't consider buying anything but Core 2 for a single-socket desktop, today. Nor would I ever consider a Core 2 Duo for an SMP enterprise server, a blade system, or a laptop or a desktop using more than 4GB of RAM. All of these applications belong to AMD 64-bit CPUS.
You are mistaken. If Apple had contracted for certain chip deliveries, AMD would have fulfilled those contracts. No, the well-established and fully-understood and in no-wise mysterious reason is that Intel is subsidizing Apple to switch over from PPC to x86. Intel had deeper pockets (and was more motivated to get Apple on the x86 ship-of fools). As a result, you don't get 64-bit 8GB RAM Turion laptops from Apple, but Apple gross margins are higher, and the shareholders are as happy as pigs in slop.
You are mistaken. If Apple had contracted for certain chip deliveries, AMD would have fulfilled those contracts. No, the well-established and fully-understood and in no-wise mysterious reason is that Intel is subsidizing Apple to switch over from PPC to x86. Intel had deeper pockets (and was more motivated to get Apple on the x86 ship-of fools). As a result, you don't get 64-bit 8GB RAM Turion laptops from Apple, but Apple gross margins are higher, and the shareholders are as happy as pigs in slop.
No. (90/65)^2 ~= 2. The shrink doubles the available silicon area. (1.92x, taken to 3 digits.)
But, while AMD is making the transition to 65nm from now through 2008, with an increasing proportion of capacity being 65nm over that time frame, aren't others already ramping up 45nm processes? Thats a 70% advantage, again. I don't recall whether it was Intel or IBM, but one of those two, I think, are already bringing up 45 nm fabs. How they will manage to deal with leakage current at that line scale is another matter entirely.
You seem to be describing systems before the VZ ISA extensions were incorporated into chip designs. I guess "easy" is always going to be subjective and arguable, but "conceptually simple" and "practically feasible" might be taken to add up, when both are applicable, to "easy". Yes it requires a skilled practitioner. No, it does not require anything non-obvious to a skilled practitioner.
Many models of voting machines *are* networked, usually over POTS analog modems. I have no idea whether the Diebold models involved in this flap are wired on electron day. But I do know that they have IR ports which you can use to access their memory, if you are in range.
a bunch of republican senators got together with the ceos of diebold and accuvote and ess, and wrote a little law which provided lots and lots of money to states that bought voting machines from these companies. in elections where those machines are used, republican candidates win, overwhelmingly, and contrary to historical trends. indeed, the ceo of ess in ohio promised to deliver ohio for gwb in 2004, and he did so, despite overwhelming evidence that gwb did not win the election in ohio.
Can you even get the disks? I've been looking on eMule, gnutella, no luck. I suspect this was a planned "leak" of a mock version of the source code, a performance by Diebold black PR ops, because any serious whistleblower would have put it in the public domain (not Public Domain) by a p2p leak.
That would be rather redundant, since exit polls, while they are quite stunningly accurate for elections not involving Bush family members, or conducted in Byelorussia, are known to be very inaccurate for the other kind of election.
There is a blowback from firing your guns before you're ready to start the race. Timing is everything when it comes to virality. That's why similar services may fail once, succeed over the top a second time, and barely limp by a third time. People won't go there, or won't stay there, if there's no "there" there. Sometimes this can have the effect of peeing in the pool: #2 can't hit because the rube base has been soured by #1.
echo boom? hardly. the graph is basically flat (within the nikkei's historical volatility margins) between the end of the crash phase at '93 and the "echo" at '00. you know we tar and feather snake oil hucksters, don't you?
But market cap is not real money. It's just a means of shifting money between smart and dumb traders. When market cap goes up, Google doesn't get any more money. Google is trading on it's revenue growth rate, which is vastly in excess of the growth rates of any of those companies in your comparison list. Ford is losing money, so damn straight Google should be trading better than Ford.
I agree that Google is overpriced, but not because of market cap. It's trading very fairly for its PEG ratio, but I think the best growth estimates of the most respected analysts are on the high side. Unless you have a reason to believe that those growth estimates are too high, you really don't have a reason to doubt Google's staying power as a trading equity.
> Google is one of the most speculated companies out there -- enough so that, on paper, > it's worth 127.62 gigadollars, which is more than 2/3 the value of Wal-Mart and 1/3 > the value of Exxon.
And worth every penny.
> Even though it does make money, its price/earnings ratio is an astronomical 61,
Hardly astronomical. Salesforce.com is at 247, last I looked. There is no rule that says a stock is only worth some perfect multiple of it's earnings. Many stocks represent companies with regular losses, and yet provide wonderful appreciation returns. Biotech and pharmaceutical companies with long R&D and clinical trial phases are of this nature. But a company losing money with 10 effective cancer treatments in the FDA pipeline is a bargain, despite a negative P/E. What the investor is paying for is a mathematical expectation of future growth. That is riskier than paying for regular dividend checks from a multinational conglomerate. But accepting risk in order to reap larger rewards is a normal part of investment, and plays a critical role in the economic development of new technologies which improve and extend our lives.
Google's market cap is an imaginary number, the product of speculation on it's future growth. Growth is often quite predictable, and the ratio of P/E to growth rate is a much better measure of an equity's fair market value than is a short-sighted P/E ratio. If you want to speculate in the short term, rather than invest for the long term, growth may not matter to you. But if you want to short Google, reaming them for a higher P/E ratio than Walmart --wake me up when Walmart's earnings per share go up 10%--is probably a good strategy.
> Even the ubiquitous Clear Channel only has a $7 gigadollar market cap, and that's with a high P/E ratio, as well.
But their motto is "Be evil."
> When google is inevitably reduced to what it's worth by... spending away billions of dollars with no results...
Very, very unlikely. Google doesn't have those imaginary dollars of market cap in their pocket to spend. Those imaginary dollars really only serve to shuffle funds between more and less clever investors. They don't play a role in the economy except as secondary effects. Moreover, Google is doing very, very well, thank you, at providing return on investment, and growth for the future which is worthy of speculation. They have also improved my life with their search engine and mail system, for which I am glad. Their success has improved the fates of tens of thousands of former cubicle galley slaves as well.
> I feel sorry for anyone who let history repeat itself and may have actually > believed these companies would rival major brick-and-mortars in revenue and profitability.
Of course Google far, far outpaces many well-known and respected brick-and-mortars for its revenue and its profitability. If you think otherwise, you're not part of the reality-based community.
> The only right thing to do in such situations is to short the stocks.
I agree about shorting Google. I would caution you that it is not going to decline significantly until the overall economy shrinks. You could find yourself in a nasty short squeeze with a margin call before you get a chance to make a dime on your long-range prediction. Buying puts for March might be a better strategy, depending on how well the market anticipates that decline. I think more people will lose money on shorting Google than make money on it, but a few excellent market-timers, technical analysts, or insiders might make a whole lot of money that way, by the time the R word is bandied about.
The value of YouTube did not lie in it's value as an investment, a future producer of revenue streams. The value of YouTube was in it's threat to Google's market share. They had Google by the balls, and that's a great place to be.
The most fatal issue for the dollar (and the reason why the U.S. is the biggest global threat) is that it's position as global reference currency is, at this point, purely the result of the fact that oil is traded in dollars. Any country (like Iraq) that is seriously moving to Euro or Gold Dinar oil trading is almost certainly going to be bombed, as Richard Armitage said to Afghanistan when they would not play ball with Unocal on the pipeline, "back to the stone age". If Iran resumed plans to open a Euro-denominated oil bourse, a "regime change" plan would be on the front burner tres vite.
This weakness is also the dollar's greatest strength. Since U.S. investment returns lag other nations, in constant exchange value terms, it needs all the help it can get. As long as China continues to prop up the dollar by buying treasuries, to keep their largest buyer buying, and keeps using those treasuries to buy oil leases, the system is stable. When they conclude that the treasuries are a loss, rather than mortgage holdings on the U.S. infrastructure, they will bail to the Euro, and the U.S. will collapse like the overextended pauper nation that it is. Meanwhile, the Bushes will be whooping it up on their new ranch in Paraguay, safe from the Hague and Congress.
Au contraire, mon frere. The most powerful people in the world are busily planning the extermination of the bulk (90%) of the population, in order to provide better yachting for their trust-fund babies. If you think otherwise, you have a very unrealistic understanding of human nature.
Re:Definitely has uses but..
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 1
Ellison is just sabre rattling to get better deals with RedHat, Novell, and especially Sun. It would be totally insane for Oracle to produce an inferior Linux distribution, and screw it's market share by pissing off all of its best partners. Admittedly, Ellison is insane, but I think that since his thin client blunder his insanity has been limited to things that don't amount to multi-billion dollar mistakes.
While this is true, it's of little interest to anyone except gamers, who don't really care much about CPU anyhow: All their business is in GPUs.
Opteron socket F, on the otherhand, is spanking Xeon silly in the 4- and 8-way market. That matters little to anyone who doesn't have high-volume computing tasks, but that happens to include me.
I read his speech at the U.N., so now I like him a LOT. He's got the balls to tell the truth. Of course this makes him hated by those who live in darkness and lies.
Slashdot Mirror
Core 2 Duo CPUs suck donkey balls when you try to run them in 4-way and 8-way systems.3 640251">here for press on the topic).
Also, they will *never*, ever, ever integrate the core architecture with GPUs, like
AMD is doing with ATI (see http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/
But yes, they are wonderful for single-socket desktops under 4GB. I wouldn't consider buying
anything but Core 2 for a single-socket desktop, today. Nor would I ever consider a
Core 2 Duo for an SMP enterprise server, a blade system, or a laptop or a desktop using
more than 4GB of RAM. All of these applications belong to AMD 64-bit CPUS.
You are mistaken. If Apple had contracted for certain chip deliveries, AMD would have fulfilled those contracts.
No, the well-established and fully-understood and in no-wise mysterious reason is that Intel is subsidizing Apple
to switch over from PPC to x86. Intel had deeper pockets (and was more motivated to get Apple on the x86 ship-of
fools). As a result, you don't get 64-bit 8GB RAM Turion laptops from Apple, but Apple gross margins are higher, and the shareholders are as happy as pigs in slop.
You are mistaken. If Apple had contracted for certain chip deliveries, AMD would have fulfilled those contracts.
No, the well-established and fully-understood and in no-wise mysterious reason is that Intel is subsidizing Apple
to switch over from PPC to x86. Intel had deeper pockets (and was more motivated to get Apple on the x86 ship-of
fools). As a result, you don't get 64-bit 8GB RAM Turion laptops from Apple, but Apple gross margins are higher,
and the shareholders are as happy as pigs in slop.
> 35%
No. (90/65)^2 ~= 2. The shrink doubles the available silicon area. (1.92x, taken to 3 digits.)
But, while AMD is making the transition to 65nm from now through 2008, with an increasing proportion of capacity being 65nm over that time frame, aren't others already ramping up 45nm processes? Thats a 70% advantage, again. I don't recall whether it was Intel or IBM, but one of those two, I think, are already bringing up 45 nm fabs. How they will manage to deal with leakage current at that line scale is another matter entirely.
You seem to be describing systems before the VZ ISA extensions were incorporated into chip designs. I guess "easy" is always going to be subjective and arguable, but "conceptually simple" and "practically feasible" might be taken to add up, when both are applicable, to "easy". Yes it requires a skilled practitioner. No, it does not require anything non-obvious to a skilled practitioner.
Many models of voting machines *are* networked, usually over POTS analog modems. I have no idea whether the Diebold models involved in this flap are wired on electron day. But I do know that they have IR ports which you can use to access their
memory, if you are in range.
Given the rate at which whistleblowers are "disappearing", I think we can trust an AC more than Johnny "Astroturf" Gosch.
a bunch of republican senators got together with the ceos of diebold and accuvote and ess, and wrote a little law which provided lots and lots of money to states that bought voting machines from these companies. in elections where those machines are used, republican candidates win, overwhelmingly, and contrary to historical trends. indeed, the ceo of ess in ohio promised to deliver ohio for gwb in 2004, and he did so, despite overwhelming evidence that gwb did not win the election in ohio.
Quick, someone, mug Jerry Seinfeld for all his +funny's and give them to this guy!
Can you even get the disks? I've been looking on eMule, gnutella, no luck. I suspect this was a planned "leak" of a mock version of the source code, a performance by Diebold black PR ops, because any serious whistleblower would have put it in the public domain (not Public Domain) by a p2p leak.
That would be rather redundant, since exit polls, while they are quite stunningly accurate for elections not involving Bush family members, or conducted in Byelorussia, are known to be very inaccurate for the other kind of election.
Indeed, the hippies will never be satisfied until every CEO in the world sees the light through ACID.
Unlike Second Life, the real Paris Hilton actually puts out.
There is a blowback from firing your guns before you're ready to start the race. Timing is everything when it comes to virality. That's why similar services may fail once, succeed over the top a second time, and barely limp by a third time. People won't go there, or won't stay there, if there's no "there" there. Sometimes this can have the effect of peeing in the pool: #2 can't hit because the rube base has been soured by #1.
echo boom? hardly. the graph is basically flat (within the nikkei's historical volatility margins) between the end of the crash phase at '93 and the "echo" at '00. you know we tar and feather snake oil hucksters, don't you?
But market cap is not real money. It's just a means of shifting money between smart and dumb traders. When market cap goes up, Google doesn't get any more money. Google is trading on it's revenue growth rate, which is vastly in excess of the growth rates
of any of those companies in your comparison list. Ford is losing money, so damn straight Google should be trading better than
Ford.
I agree that Google is overpriced, but not because of market cap. It's trading very fairly for its PEG ratio, but I think
the best growth estimates of the most respected analysts are on the high side. Unless you have a reason to believe that
those growth estimates are too high, you really don't have a reason to doubt Google's staying power as a trading equity.
> Google is one of the most speculated companies out there -- enough so that, on paper,
... spending away billions of dollars with no results...
> it's worth 127.62 gigadollars, which is more than 2/3 the value of Wal-Mart and 1/3
> the value of Exxon.
And worth every penny.
> Even though it does make money, its price/earnings ratio is an astronomical 61,
Hardly astronomical. Salesforce.com is at 247, last I looked. There is no rule that says
a stock is only worth some perfect multiple of it's earnings. Many stocks represent
companies with regular losses, and yet provide wonderful appreciation returns. Biotech
and pharmaceutical companies with long R&D and clinical trial phases are of this nature.
But a company losing money with 10 effective cancer treatments in the FDA pipeline is
a bargain, despite a negative P/E. What the investor is paying for is a mathematical
expectation of future growth. That is riskier than paying for regular dividend checks
from a multinational conglomerate. But accepting risk in order to reap larger rewards
is a normal part of investment, and plays a critical role in the economic development of
new technologies which improve and extend our lives.
Google's market cap is an imaginary number, the product of speculation on it's future growth.
Growth is often quite predictable, and the ratio of P/E to growth rate is a much better
measure of an equity's fair market value than is a short-sighted P/E ratio. If you want
to speculate in the short term, rather than invest for the long term, growth may not matter
to you. But if you want to short Google, reaming them for a higher P/E ratio than Walmart
--wake me up when Walmart's earnings per share go up 10%--is probably a good strategy.
> Even the ubiquitous Clear Channel only has a $7 gigadollar market cap, and that's with a high P/E ratio, as well.
But their motto is "Be evil."
> When google is inevitably reduced to what it's worth by
Very, very unlikely. Google doesn't have those imaginary dollars of market cap in their pocket to spend. Those
imaginary dollars really only serve to shuffle funds between more and less clever investors. They don't play a role
in the economy except as secondary effects. Moreover, Google is doing very, very well, thank you, at providing
return on investment, and growth for the future which is worthy of speculation. They have also improved my life
with their search engine and mail system, for which I am glad. Their success has improved the fates of tens of
thousands of former cubicle galley slaves as well.
> I feel sorry for anyone who let history repeat itself and may have actually
> believed these companies would rival major brick-and-mortars in revenue and profitability.
Of course Google far, far outpaces many well-known and respected
brick-and-mortars for its revenue and its profitability. If you think otherwise, you're
not part of the reality-based community.
> The only right thing to do in such situations is to short the stocks.
I agree about shorting Google. I would caution you that it is not going to decline significantly until
the overall economy shrinks. You could find yourself in a nasty short squeeze with a margin call before
you get a chance to make a dime on your long-range prediction. Buying puts for March might be a better
strategy, depending on how well the market anticipates that decline. I think more people will lose
money on shorting Google than make money on it, but a few excellent market-timers, technical analysts, or
insiders might make a whole lot of money that way, by the time the R word is bandied about.
The value of YouTube did not lie in it's value as an investment, a future producer of revenue streams. The value of YouTube was in it's threat to Google's market share. They had Google by the balls, and that's a great place to be.
The most fatal issue for the dollar (and the reason why the U.S. is the biggest global threat) is that it's position as global reference currency is, at this point, purely the result of the fact that oil is traded in dollars. Any country (like Iraq) that is seriously moving to Euro or Gold Dinar oil trading is almost certainly going to be bombed, as Richard Armitage said to Afghanistan when they would not play ball with Unocal on the pipeline, "back to the stone age". If Iran resumed plans to open a Euro-denominated oil bourse, a "regime change" plan would be on the front burner tres vite.
This weakness is also the dollar's greatest strength. Since U.S. investment returns lag other nations, in constant exchange value terms, it needs all the help it can get. As long as China continues to prop up the dollar by buying treasuries, to keep their largest buyer buying, and keeps using those treasuries to buy oil leases, the system is stable. When they conclude that the treasuries are a loss, rather than mortgage holdings on the U.S. infrastructure, they will bail to the Euro, and the U.S. will collapse like the overextended pauper nation that it is. Meanwhile, the Bushes will be whooping it up on their new ranch in Paraguay, safe from the Hague and Congress.
> My wife and 5 children enjoy the 3,000 sq foot home, swimming pool, speedboat,
> and the 5 vehicles that writing PHP code has provided for us.
What I'm getting from this is that when we start trimming the genepool, PHP coders are near the top of the list.
> no one is advocating wiping out humans
Au contraire, mon frere. The most powerful people in the world are busily
planning the extermination of the bulk (90%) of the population, in order to
provide better yachting for their trust-fund babies. If you think otherwise,
you have a very unrealistic understanding of human nature.
Ellison is just sabre rattling to get better deals with RedHat, Novell, and especially Sun. It would be totally insane for Oracle to produce an inferior Linux distribution, and screw it's market share by pissing off all of its best partners. Admittedly, Ellison is insane, but I think that since his thin client blunder his insanity has been limited to things that don't amount to multi-billion dollar mistakes.
> The sizes average between thousands and hundreds of thousand light years, containing ten million to one trillion stars.
Cut the guy some slack: Those were some amazingly large "snapshots".
While this is true, it's of little interest to anyone except gamers, who don't really care much about CPU anyhow: All their business is in GPUs.
Opteron socket F, on the otherhand, is spanking Xeon silly in the 4- and 8-way market. That matters little to anyone who doesn't have high-volume computing tasks, but that happens to include me.
> He does say some outragous bullshit
I read his speech at the U.N., so now I like him a LOT.
He's got the balls to tell the truth.
Of course this makes him hated by those who live in darkness and lies.