You have missed the point. Using a depth-first-seach approach allows you to avoid exactly what it is that you have described.
You sound rather dogmatic, so perhaps it would be instructive for you first to realize that you are wrong: it does not require more memory than the number of atoms in the universe to calculate this answer. The fact that "NxN chess" is in PSPACE stands in direct contradiction to your statement.
BULLSHIT. What the hell do you think you are searching? The NXN chess proof doesn't make it implementable. Tell me what structure you are searching. Your first post said you needed a stack of depth 50. This is utter nonsense because in a DFS of a graph, you must keep a list of visited nodes. Otherwise, your super chess program will run in circles until the end of time. Once you keep a list of states, you're screwed for storage space.
My quick search on the internet seems to say that NxN chess is EXPTIME-complete. Even if I give you the right answer for the best move in a particular position, you can't verify it in poly time. This gives more credence to the storage space problem.
Additionally, if time was not an issue, you could solve this problem with very little memory using a simple depth-first-search approach. The amount of additional space you would need would simply be the depth of the stack. The depth of the stack is equivalent to the number of moves. The number of moves in a typical game of chess is less than 50, but what's important is that you can bound the number of moves by some constant.
This is blatantly wrong. A DFS (presumably, you mean a minimax search) would need to visit every possible check- or stale- mate from the starting position, in order to assess it. Then, it would work backwards through the entire search space. Just marking nodes as visited would require more memory than the number of atoms in the universe.
To put it in more simple terms, how would your "depth-first-search" know that the first move was correct, without first knowing the opponent made the best first move, and knowing that you made the best second move?
"There are about 10^120 positions in chess, if I remember correctly. Even if you could solve it, there'd be no possible way to store the answer"
Not quite true; it is likely that the solution could be expressed as an algorithm that would take up much less space than an exhaustive list of state transitions.
For example, if you had a game where the goal was to take turns naming positive integers until someone was forced to name an integer larger than the one their opponent just named (and thus lost), there are an infinite number of states, but the "solution" can be expressed quite simply:
Say "one."
So, at least in this case, the solution is much smaller than the list of all posible cases. I suspect the solution to chess, while much larger than this, is still smaller that you propose.
You're mostly correct. To find the best move at the beginning of a game, for instance, your example is like choosing an opening. You're also right for the endgame. I imagine that in the middlegame, though, if you're not doing an exhaustive search, then you're using a heuristic. I can't say whether a perfect heuristic can be found for chess, but there would probably be a whole lot of exceptions to the "perfect move" generated, which would need to be stored in the heuristic.
So, with your method, there might be no way to store the algorithm to run! On the other hand, maybe the heuristic could fit onto a 1.44 MB floppy disc. But if the search space wasn't full of local maxima, chess wouldn't be such a hard AI problem. So, the only thing that keeps us from finding the right answer might be the high branching factor, which is more related to the number of positions. Just random thoughts.
"For instance, we can solve chess (find the best possible game), and all other decidable search problems."
Can you rephrase this? It sounds like you are saying that we can/could determine the best moves in chess.
There are about 10^120 positions in chess, if I remember correctly. Even if you could solve it, there'd be no possible way to store the answer, as this is much larger than the number of atoms in the universe (around 10^80). As Dirk Gently might say, "If you can't possibly store it, then it must be stored impossibly!"
You might not be aware of the fact but MIT also happens to have a large faculty and many non-faculty research staff. As is pretty well known on Slashdot I was a researcher there about ten years after I got my doctorate.
This kind of direct answer wins many points in a discussion. Thanks.
Your digression on statistics would have more weight if you were familliar with the material. The probability that one HIV strain would wait until 1952 to jump from monkey to human is not high, the probability that the first known case would be discovered in Kinshasa a year after one of the first polio trials occured there is also not high.
But HIV is not one virus, it is two, HIV-1 and HIV-2 are completely different strains. What is the probability of two money viruses changing species within the same narrow geographical area in the same time?
I fail to see how my lack of knowledge in the origin of HIV relates to my extremely simple point that safety in a nuclear reactor has so little to do with genetics that it shouldn't be worth mentioning.
Pot, kettle, black.
Granted. Keep in mind that the pot and the kettle are still both black. I would disagree with you, though, about the high ratio of "blackness" that is implied.
You attempt to dismiss statements on grounds of authority you do not posses.
My original post was an attempt to dismiss an inflammatory post which preyed on people's fears. If you disagree, look at your statement about geneticists: "They don't really know what they are doing, if they did they would have decipherted the human genome and be able to explain how it does what it does". Your broad statements are only backed up by assumptions and general vagueness. I don't really see you defending your original post here, since even you don't seem to know the "probability of two [monkey] viruses changing species", etc. I'm obviously not an expert in the field, so I don't really see it as a rhetorical question.
Slashdot is not the best venue for this kind of discussion, anyways, as there's no real back-and-forth. Things usually remain unresolved here. If we were sitting down and talking, there would be no issue, as I could immediately ask you for supporting data to something that seems hurriedly said. I believe that you should have some supporting evidence when posting here IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST, because people don't expect you to respond to their responses.
Regardless of what you may think, I don't want this to turn to name calling. There's just this vibe here that feels like you tried to pick apart posts that disagree with you, regardless of their valid points. I have better things to do with my time than bandy words over that kind of matter.
Rutulian, Zeinfeld replied to my post as well. Don't answer him. I'm pretty sure he's only trolling right now for whatever reason. I simply cannot believe that he is THAT (to use your word) ignorant.
You assume that we allow everything until it is proven to be dangerous.
I didn't assume anything. My post was 100 percent factual. You talk about genetics and nuclear reactor disastors as if they aren't apples and oranges.
US medical ethics assumes the opposite, it is the duty and responsibility of the researchers to prove that their plan is safe and that there is no possibility of unexpected side effects.
No possibility??!! Plus, ethics assumes?? This is a clear misrepresentation of what ethics is. You might want to take an ethics class, too, just so you understand what I'm saying. I'd like to see any research that has no possibility of unexpected side effects. That's impossible! You can only expect the unexpected up to a point!
For your information, transgenic implantation is prohibited in the US for precisely the reasons I stated. The risk of viruses moving from one species to another is not considered to be acceptable.
I understand why this law exists, and I wouldn't advocate breaking the law.
My original point was that the people who shriek 'science' tend not to be scientists, equally those who invite people to talk to statistics teachers tend not to know what statistics can and cannot tell you.
Funny, I thought your original point was that genetic researchers didn't know what they were doing because they haven't totally deciphered the human genome, and should therefore not be allowed to experiment on transgenetic implants.
It's interesting how your post has gained so much meaning since I last read it. It's not that you might not have meant it, but generally if you're making some sort of point, it's a good idea to include it in your comment.
Now then, let's examine your mention of my "statistics teacher" comment.
Your signature hints that you're not yet a college graduate, as you are either going to MIT or want to. This might be an assumption, as you COULD have graduated from there. Tell me if I'm wrong.
I assumed, therefore, that you might have access to a pool of teachers.
A statistics teacher is the obvious choice to educate how not to take a weak unscientific correlation (based on memories of disasters), and then extrapolate a causal relationship.
Even if you're a college grad, you still might benefit from a talk with a statistics prof.
Yes, I have taken a statistics class, and am aware of what statistics can do. You insult my intelligence when you assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. I understand that this is not a good application for statistics, but what person would YOU have said you should talk to if you can't understand the difference between anecdotal correlation and a causal relationship?
Now, then, a little rant:
Are you actually claiming that you stand by your highly misleading original comment??? This I cannot understand. Reread it. There is nothing there. IF you wanted to back it up with the information you have given me in your most recent reply, then you should have included it in your original post. Hint: there would be enough room if you took out all references to chernobyl and three mile island, as they have nothing to do with genetics. Plus, as others have mentioned, three mile island was an unfortunate accident, whose safety measures worked to a great extent. No new nuclear plants have been built in the US since the meltdown, even though it is generally agreed that the existing ones are safe. It is the "beware of the unknown, unpredictable tragedy" mentality that has slowed development of new nuclear plants, and, yes, therefore technology.
Transgenic implants are a terrible idea. The most credible theory on the origin of HIV is that it jumped species after a bunch of vaccinations with a trial vaccine that had been incubated in monkeys. The first known cases of AIDS turn out to map pretty well to the trial sites..... These issues are vastly more complex than the glib statements made by the genetics industry would have people believe. They don't really know what they are doing, if they did they would have decipherted the human genome and be able to explain how it does what it does.
Your post takes a lot of unrelated scientific stuff, and tries to form a causal relationship. This is simply not acceptible. Ask your statistics teacher. It is all FUD. You have given no real data to back up your slamming of the genetics researchers.
Sorry, I made a bad analogy, comparing words despite their different meanings. But taking a bad point further, plagiarism can be seen as a particularly bad (and yes, it is illegal) form of "piracy". In order to plagiarise, you must copy someone else's work, verbatim, and take credit without giving the original author credit. This is like replacing the copyright on emacs with another copyright where your name is the sole owner. This violates the GPL. If I take all the credit, then I deny the author any possibility of return from his work (assuming he doesn't fight back). My suggestion is, you take the "copyright FSF" out of the emacs source, and replace it with "copyright mic". Begin widely distributing it, and just see how long until you are accosted in the street by Richard Stallman. So, yes, plagiarism is always "unauthorized copying" and it is definitely always illegal as long as the copyright stands.
Sorry, chrisd, it is piracy unless you own the originals.
In this one specific area, I definitely agree with Richard Stallman. Piracy is a marketing word, with many connotations. I wish the community would use terms more like "unauthorized copying" or "illegal copies". Even plagiarism sounds better than piracy, semantically. The english language can in its current form duplicate many of the worst features of doublespeak.
he has the processor -> he got a paper cut. ergo, the processor exists only on paper.
And it wasn't funny, so you're both right:)
Re:yeah, they do these things to steal from you...
on
Coming Soon From Intel
·
· Score: 1
Also, it's ironic that you bring up "style vs safety". Surplus power allows you to run useful daemons that improve safety and reliability of your system, from background disk checking to virus scanning. And apps designed for a faster "average" platform can build in more layers of checks and safeguards without having to weigh them against performance costs.
Of course we all know this never happens. The platform is simply more tolerant to hideously slow code, and it seems like few people emphasize stability over a large set of features (bloat) these days.
Big whoop! You can rpm, and that's great, but I can deb! What's the difference? Two things.... First, if I click on an rpm file in netscape, it launches real player. Second, apt baby!
The author of the web page and of the emails sounds very confrontational in his initial letter by making statements without any proof, such as saying investors are "bound to lose their investment", and that all of LinuxOne's claims are "absurdly false". This is highly accusatory, and is not appropriate without point by point explanations of what they did. I can't blame the investment firm for being angry!
You make a mistake in thinking of cost on a per-user basis. These businesses don't care about ad-per-user ratio, but the ad-per-modem ratio. If you don't refresh your "health" bar, you'll just get booted for someone else who actually will have to put up with ads.
Maybe it's my lack of training, but I think a capitalist pundit would think what is good for competition is good for consumers. Prices are kept in check when competition sufficiently increases, right?
When I first downloaded the code, I couldn't compile because I didn't have Motif
My computer isn't powerful enough (according to what their website originally said)
The first version wouldn't compile/run at all anyways
I lost interest!! It's one thing to hack on something which I can run everyday, but when I wouldn't see results because it didn't work anyways, I gave up! Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are a lot of people like me, who would have been willing to help, but there were just too many obstacles to start with.
Why don't I help out now? It still won't run without crashing on my computer, so I can't use it as my default browser. Also, I am rather busy with school.
Why not just call it "Free Linux"? This isn't as cludgey (sp?) as GNU/Linux, and it still gives credit to the FSF, and to the GPL, Linux's allmighty License.
Slashdot Mirror
You have missed the point. Using a depth-first-seach approach allows you to avoid exactly what it is that you have described.
You sound rather dogmatic, so perhaps it would be instructive for you first to realize that you are wrong: it does not require more memory than the number of atoms in the universe to calculate this answer. The fact that "NxN chess" is in PSPACE stands in direct contradiction to your statement.
BULLSHIT. What the hell do you think you are searching? The NXN chess proof doesn't make it implementable. Tell me what structure you are searching. Your first post said you needed a stack of depth 50. This is utter nonsense because in a DFS of a graph, you must keep a list of visited nodes. Otherwise, your super chess program will run in circles until the end of time. Once you keep a list of states, you're screwed for storage space.
My quick search on the internet seems to say that NxN chess is EXPTIME-complete. Even if I give you the right answer for the best move in a particular position, you can't verify it in poly time. This gives more credence to the storage space problem.
Additionally, if time was not an issue, you could solve this problem with very little memory using a simple depth-first-search approach. The amount of additional space you would need would simply be the depth of the stack. The depth of the stack is equivalent to the number of moves. The number of moves in a typical game of chess is less than 50, but what's important is that you can bound the number of moves by some constant.
This is blatantly wrong. A DFS (presumably, you mean a minimax search) would need to visit every possible check- or stale- mate from the starting position, in order to assess it. Then, it would work backwards through the entire search space. Just marking nodes as visited would require more memory than the number of atoms in the universe.
To put it in more simple terms, how would your "depth-first-search" know that the first move was correct, without first knowing the opponent made the best first move, and knowing that you made the best second move?
"There are about 10^120 positions in chess, if I remember correctly. Even if you could solve it, there'd be no possible way to store the answer"
Not quite true; it is likely that the solution could be expressed as an algorithm that would take up much less space than an exhaustive list of state transitions.
For example, if you had a game where the goal was to take turns naming positive integers until someone was forced to name an integer larger than the one their opponent just named (and thus lost), there are an infinite number of states, but the "solution" can be expressed quite simply:
Say "one."
So, at least in this case, the solution is much smaller than the list of all posible cases. I suspect the solution to chess, while much larger than this, is still smaller that you propose.
You're mostly correct. To find the best move at the beginning of a game, for instance, your example is like choosing an opening. You're also right for the endgame. I imagine that in the middlegame, though, if you're not doing an exhaustive search, then you're using a heuristic. I can't say whether a perfect heuristic can be found for chess, but there would probably be a whole lot of exceptions to the "perfect move" generated, which would need to be stored in the heuristic.
So, with your method, there might be no way to store the algorithm to run! On the other hand, maybe the heuristic could fit onto a 1.44 MB floppy disc. But if the search space wasn't full of local maxima, chess wouldn't be such a hard AI problem. So, the only thing that keeps us from finding the right answer might be the high branching factor, which is more related to the number of positions. Just random thoughts.
"For instance, we can solve chess (find the best possible game), and all other decidable search problems."
Can you rephrase this? It sounds like you are saying that we can/could determine the best moves in chess.
There are about 10^120 positions in chess, if I remember correctly. Even if you could solve it, there'd be no possible way to store the answer, as this is much larger than the number of atoms in the universe (around 10^80). As Dirk Gently might say, "If you can't possibly store it, then it must be stored impossibly!"
With your userID, I don't know if you were reading before the slashcode was released.
What about MY 'leet user id? I don't remember *not* having access to some (albeit archaic) version of slash.
I can't believe I started using a different id later just because my user name is so stupid!
Are they planning on changing their ticker symbol or do they enjoy the contradiction of it all?
I think it's in the plans, but it isn't for definite, yet.
You might not be aware of the fact but MIT also happens to have a large faculty and many non-faculty research staff. As is pretty well known on Slashdot I was a researcher there about ten years after I got my doctorate.
This kind of direct answer wins many points in a discussion. Thanks.
Your digression on statistics would have more weight if you were familliar with the material. The probability that one HIV strain would wait until 1952 to jump from monkey to human is not high, the probability that the first known case would be discovered in Kinshasa a year after one of the first polio trials occured there is also not high.
But HIV is not one virus, it is two, HIV-1 and HIV-2 are completely different strains. What is the probability of two money viruses changing species within the same narrow geographical area in the same time?
I fail to see how my lack of knowledge in the origin of HIV relates to my extremely simple point that safety in a nuclear reactor has so little to do with genetics that it shouldn't be worth mentioning.
Pot, kettle, black.
Granted. Keep in mind that the pot and the kettle are still both black. I would disagree with you, though, about the high ratio of "blackness" that is implied.
You attempt to dismiss statements on grounds of authority you do not posses.
My original post was an attempt to dismiss an inflammatory post which preyed on people's fears. If you disagree, look at your statement about geneticists: "They don't really know what they are doing, if they did they would have decipherted the human genome and be able to explain how it does what it does". Your broad statements are only backed up by assumptions and general vagueness. I don't really see you defending your original post here, since even you don't seem to know the "probability of two [monkey] viruses changing species", etc. I'm obviously not an expert in the field, so I don't really see it as a rhetorical question.
Slashdot is not the best venue for this kind of discussion, anyways, as there's no real back-and-forth. Things usually remain unresolved here. If we were sitting down and talking, there would be no issue, as I could immediately ask you for supporting data to something that seems hurriedly said. I believe that you should have some supporting evidence when posting here IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST, because people don't expect you to respond to their responses.
Regardless of what you may think, I don't want this to turn to name calling. There's just this vibe here that feels like you tried to pick apart posts that disagree with you, regardless of their valid points. I have better things to do with my time than bandy words over that kind of matter.
Rutulian, Zeinfeld replied to my post as well. Don't answer him. I'm pretty sure he's only trolling right now for whatever reason. I simply cannot believe that he is THAT (to use your word) ignorant.
I didn't assume anything. My post was 100 percent factual. You talk about genetics and nuclear reactor disastors as if they aren't apples and oranges.
US medical ethics assumes the opposite, it is the duty and responsibility of the researchers to prove that their plan is safe and that there is no possibility of unexpected side effects.
No possibility??!! Plus, ethics assumes?? This is a clear misrepresentation of what ethics is. You might want to take an ethics class, too, just so you understand what I'm saying. I'd like to see any research that has no possibility of unexpected side effects. That's impossible! You can only expect the unexpected up to a point!
For your information, transgenic implantation is prohibited in the US for precisely the reasons I stated. The risk of viruses moving from one species to another is not considered to be acceptable.
I understand why this law exists, and I wouldn't advocate breaking the law.
My original point was that the people who shriek 'science' tend not to be scientists, equally those who invite people to talk to statistics teachers tend not to know what statistics can and cannot tell you.
Funny, I thought your original point was that genetic researchers didn't know what they were doing because they haven't totally deciphered the human genome, and should therefore not be allowed to experiment on transgenetic implants.
It's interesting how your post has gained so much meaning since I last read it. It's not that you might not have meant it, but generally if you're making some sort of point, it's a good idea to include it in your comment.
Now then, let's examine your mention of my "statistics teacher" comment.
- Your signature hints that you're not yet a college graduate, as you are either going to MIT or want to. This might be an assumption, as you COULD have graduated from there. Tell me if I'm wrong.
- I assumed, therefore, that you might have access to a pool of teachers.
- A statistics teacher is the obvious choice to educate how not to take a weak unscientific correlation (based on memories of disasters), and then extrapolate a causal relationship.
- Even if you're a college grad, you still might benefit from a talk with a statistics prof.
- Yes, I have taken a statistics class, and am aware of what statistics can do. You insult my intelligence when you assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. I understand that this is not a good application for statistics, but what person would YOU have said you should talk to if you can't understand the difference between anecdotal correlation and a causal relationship?
Now, then, a little rant:Are you actually claiming that you stand by your highly misleading original comment??? This I cannot understand. Reread it. There is nothing there. IF you wanted to back it up with the information you have given me in your most recent reply, then you should have included it in your original post. Hint: there would be enough room if you took out all references to chernobyl and three mile island, as they have nothing to do with genetics. Plus, as others have mentioned, three mile island was an unfortunate accident, whose safety measures worked to a great extent. No new nuclear plants have been built in the US since the meltdown, even though it is generally agreed that the existing ones are safe. It is the "beware of the unknown, unpredictable tragedy" mentality that has slowed development of new nuclear plants, and, yes, therefore technology.
Transgenic implants are a terrible idea. The most credible theory on the origin of HIV is that it jumped species after a bunch of vaccinations with a trial vaccine that had been incubated in monkeys. The first known cases of AIDS turn out to map pretty well to the trial sites. .... These issues are vastly more complex than the glib statements made by the genetics industry would have people believe. They don't really know what they are doing, if they did they would have decipherted the human genome and be able to explain how it does what it does.
Your post takes a lot of unrelated scientific stuff, and tries to form a causal relationship. This is simply not acceptible. Ask your statistics teacher. It is all FUD. You have given no real data to back up your slamming of the genetics researchers.
Sorry, I made a bad analogy, comparing words despite their different meanings. But taking a bad point further, plagiarism can be seen as a particularly bad (and yes, it is illegal) form of "piracy". In order to plagiarise, you must copy someone else's work, verbatim, and take credit without giving the original author credit. This is like replacing the copyright on emacs with another copyright where your name is the sole owner. This violates the GPL. If I take all the credit, then I deny the author any possibility of return from his work (assuming he doesn't fight back). My suggestion is, you take the "copyright FSF" out of the emacs source, and replace it with "copyright mic". Begin widely distributing it, and just see how long until you are accosted in the street by Richard Stallman. So, yes, plagiarism is always "unauthorized copying" and it is definitely always illegal as long as the copyright stands.
Universal TV stations? Paramount Importance? New Zealand? Do you mean UPN? I'm not sure this is the cure-all you seek! :-)
Sorry, chrisd, it is piracy unless you own the originals.
In this one specific area, I definitely agree with Richard Stallman. Piracy is a marketing word, with many connotations. I wish the community would use terms more like "unauthorized copying" or "illegal copies". Even plagiarism sounds better than piracy, semantically. The english language can in its current form duplicate many of the worst features of doublespeak.
Agreed, Armageddon was sh*t!
I call it the worst modern movie I've seen.
A space shuttle with a f*cking gun on the top when it costs $100,000 to lift a pound into space?
he has the processor -> he got a paper cut. ergo, the processor exists only on paper.
:)
And it wasn't funny, so you're both right
Also, it's ironic that you bring up "style vs safety". Surplus power allows you to run useful daemons that improve safety and reliability of your system, from background disk checking to virus scanning. And apps designed for a faster "average" platform can build in more layers of checks and safeguards without having to weigh them against performance costs.
Of course we all know this never happens. The platform is simply more tolerant to hideously slow code, and it seems like few people emphasize stability over a large set of features (bloat) these days.
Big whoop! You can rpm, and that's great, but I can deb! What's the difference? Two things.... First, if I click on an rpm file in netscape, it launches real player. Second, apt baby!
The author of the web page and of the emails sounds very confrontational in his initial letter by making statements without any proof, such as saying investors are "bound to lose their investment", and that all of LinuxOne's claims are "absurdly false". This is highly accusatory, and is not appropriate without point by point explanations of what they did. I can't blame the investment firm for being angry!
You make a mistake in thinking of cost on a per-user basis. These businesses don't care about ad-per-user ratio, but the ad-per-modem ratio. If you don't refresh your "health" bar, you'll just get booted for someone else who actually will have to put up with ads.
Maybe it's my lack of training, but I think a capitalist pundit would think what is good for competition is good for consumers. Prices are kept in check when competition sufficiently increases, right?
- I don't have the expertise (admitted)
- When I first downloaded the code, I couldn't compile because I didn't have Motif
- My computer isn't powerful enough (according to what their website originally said)
- The first version wouldn't compile/run at all anyways
I lost interest!! It's one thing to hack on something which I can run everyday, but when I wouldn't see results because it didn't work anyways, I gave up! Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are a lot of people like me, who would have been willing to help, but there were just too many obstacles to start with.Why don't I help out now? It still won't run without crashing on my computer, so I can't use it as my default browser. Also, I am rather busy with school.
Why not just call it "Free Linux"? This isn't as cludgey (sp?) as GNU/Linux, and it still gives credit to the FSF, and to the GPL, Linux's allmighty License.
I'm pretty stupid with egrep, but here's my version: /usr/lib/ispell/american.hash | perl -e 'foreach(){if(/\w*G\w*N\w*U\w*/){print;}}'|sort|un iq|tr "\n" " "
strings
ALGONQUIAN ALGONQUIN ANDROGYNOUS ARGONAUT CONSANGUINEOUS CORRIGENDUM CYGNUS DISINGENUOUS DOUGHNUT EIGENFUNCTION EIGENVALUE ENDOGENOUS EXOGENOUS GAINFUL GARGANTUAN GATLINBURG GELATINOUS GENEROUS GENEROUSLY GENIUS GENUINE GENUS GEOSYNCHRONOUS GERANIUM GERMANIUM GINSBURG GLANDULAR GLUTINOUS GRANDDAUGHTER GRANDEUR GRANDILOQUENT GRANULAR GRANULARITY GRANULATE GRANULE GRANULOCYTIC GREENHOUSE GROWNUP GYMNASIUM HETEROGENEOUS HETEROGENOUS HOMOGENEOUS IGNEOUS IGNOMINIOUS IGNORAMUS INDIGENOUS INGENIOUS INGENUITY INGENUOUS INHOMOGENEOUS INTERREGNUM LEGUMINOUS LIGNUM MAGNANIMOUS MAGNESIUM MAGNITUDE MAGNUM MAGNUSON NITROGENOUS OVERGENEROUS POLYGYNOUS SANGUINEOUS SIGNATURE
Article says AMD has beaten Intel overall in the retail market. In the sub $1000 market, AMD has OVER 50% and Intel has like 25%
I like it when people leave links. (really) I don't always have time to go to these pages and read though....
/. ID.
There's no real point to this post, I am really just testing out my new