Sincerely, I also want to know, but I have no real answer why this was so late.
If you look at the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage ordered by years, we can only observe that the women suffrage was archived in many countries in a process running between the 20th century. Switzerland followed this trend lately compared the countries around them. A first federal vote heavily failed in 1959, but the second one succeeded easily in 1971. What's change in 12 years ? Part of the response in from the situation into each of the cantons (states) constitutions witch was largely independent from the federal constitution. Some granted the women suffrage before the federal one, some after, and the latest was even order to do so. The situation was different in each cantons, because the mens mentality about the women role was different. The first task was to change the mens mentality about that.
The interesting observation is that the politic system played a little role in this transition, the biggest role was the change in the mentality of the mens by the womens. A successful vote is an agreement that most have understand a problem an find a common solution. You can't expect a successful vote if the problem is denied. In this regard, the direct democracy only show the current state of thinking of the citizens. This is positive in the sense that you can act based on a known state. You don't have to only speculate about "what the peoples think".
By the way, a change in the constitution voted in a direct democracy is an achievement that at least the majority agree to act accordingly. A change in the constitution without a vote in a direct democracy can frustrate more than the majority of the citizens, not only on the subject of the vote, but also against the government. In a direct democracy, you better have to take before acting. I think this is a good way. Imposing a new rule without consensus is always painful.
Well, I am Swiss. Here the direct democracies is in place since a long time an work pretty well. If you bother to learn a bit about the Switzerland politic you will find that the direct democracies is fare from unworkable.
I observe that a lot of people that only think about the theoretical process of the direct democracies found hard to believe that it work. Some care must be taken here when comparing to the Swiss politic system. Direct democracies here don't work alone. There is a bunch of others features that help to make the system more usable and effective.
First there is the practical problem to make all citizens designing a new change of the constitution. To overcome this, the Swiss citizens elect two legislatives chambers with the proportional system. One is in proportion to the states, and the other is proportion to the peoples. There is an important third player in the legislative process: a relative small group of citizens can start an initiative. Either a new proposal or a counter proposition against the chambers proposals.
Secondly the same problem raise for the daily tasks. Here the solution used is very unique in that the head of state is a federal council of 7 members of the two chambers and are elected by them. All main parties are usually represented in the federal council and there are required to act like a single entity. The president is only a honorific title given for one year to one of the seven, usually on a round basis.
Finally, any change to the constitution must be voted by the citizens, and a small group of citizens can force a vote about a change in the laws. This is here that the direct democracy play the biggest role in the Swiss politic.
A least with direct democracy you need >50% to get this kind of catastrophic result. In non-direct democracy the government and legislative alone can do that, even if there are 1% of the citizens.
Getting half of a nation against the other half is a difficult process in a direct democracy with the addition of proportional representative. I think this is mostly a theoretical possibility than a practical one.
In live in Switzerland where direct democracy is in place since a long time. Here there is a strong respect of the minority (there is 4 official languages for example) and strangers are even allowed to vote under some conditions. This is far away from a totalitarian system !
I don't share your view that education is a requirement for the direct democracy.
The knowledge of the politics process in Switzerland is almost not studied at all in the standard education track. This is something that you learn when you are adult are take part of the economy. This is not difficult as the media take part of the process and explain each time what the next vote is about. Each citizen get his voting material directly by post many weeks before the vote. The material contain detailed explanation on how you can vote as well as all the relevant information to do it. In addition, you vote many time each years, so you gradually view the voting process as a usual one. This help to concentrate on the subject of the vote.
Secondly, if a nation as a whole did not share a common knowledge about a subject, then the direct democracy have the advantage to simply reflect this fact. This give more opportunity to each citizen to learn about a particular subject, because at the end of the process, there have the last word, not the government alone. As a citizen, you get more power and more responsibility. This tend to make you more concerned and then more willing to learn on the voting subject.
You can compare your particular vote to the national result and get some feeling about that. This help you getting better argument for a future vote about a similar subject. You get involved and interested. You can known on what subject you are in phase with a majority, and on what subject you have a different view. As you vote on subject, you don't have to follow parties views. Recent events in Switzerland have show how it's difficult for a single party to satisfy a majority of citizen on all subjects. In don't think this is even possible at all. Politics by voting for parties don't work as there never reflect all your view and can so easily forget there promises.
So I think that the direct democracy, instead of requiring high educated citizens, tends to "educate" the citizen to the politics process and to take part the national decision. This make the peoples think more about voting subject that parties share (even if actually it's not the case because we renew the legislatives chambers, but this is just a special vote once each 4 years).
Well, "direct democracy" definition is not the point (Swiss elect two legislative chambers, but directly vote the constitution changes). I thinks that the main point is to have enough tools to give back control to the citizens. Proportional representation, direct citizens vote on constitution changes, referendums and initiatives are, all together, a way to make "a more direct democracy" (if not exactly a direct democracy by definition). There can be others ways. I am just pointing out what's in place here. Personally, I think that the the random should play a bigger part in the way citizens can be elected, to lower the power of some coalition.
It's interesting to know that some US states have referendums, but not the federal government. In CH, the referendum and initiative have been granted for the federal government since a long time. More en more states (cantons) changed lately to get them. More recently, the initiative is now possible even in the commune. It has been a top down process here.
You are right about the fact, but I don't agree about your analysis. Not enough womens where concerned about the politics to start changing this rules before this time. There is not a clear explanation about this, but you must observe that the system was fixed and that now the womens play a very big role in the Swiss politic.
You can find others counter-example about the Swiss politics for sure. I don't pretend this is a perfect system that will magically fix any problems. Some aspects of the system (largely unknown into many others countries) give back power to the citizens and I am sure that in many countries, a large chunk of citizens will wants something in that direction.
Here is Switzerland, direct democracy is in place since a long time and work pretty well to moderate the politics. Of course this don't solve magically any problem of the country, but this give a lot of power back to the citizens. There are example of citizens initiatives that have passed despite the government wish, and there are example of government strong proposal that have been rejected by the citizens. Direct democracy work for sure here. This have the side effect to make the overall citizen more concerned and to make the politic less without control.
Part of many country problem is to give too much power to a very small group of people. I live in Switzerland, where proportional representation, direct democracy, constitutional initiative and referendum are in place since a long time. Those "politic tools" tends to give back some government controls to the citizens, effectively making harder for a small but powerful entity to impose his view alone. Citizens are more concerned and informed about the politic process and get very often the responsibility to vote on almost any changes of the constitution. That way, the citizen tend to think as a part of the nation, not as a supporter or opponent to an elected majority.
This is very observable in the media. Most country new is only about what the citizens will face after government decisions or about election of the next government (if not only the president). Here, the citizen actions are more visible. It's usual to vote to choose between constitution changes proposed by the government or by a group of citizens. This bring some pressure to the politics to present acceptable changes.
echo "A C application" # There is no such thing like 'extern "C++"'... echo "int foo(); int main(void) { return foo(); }" > main.c gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic -c -o main.o main.c echo
echo "Use a C++ object into a C application, try with a C linker" # Will fail... gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic -o bar foo.o main.o echo
echo "Use a C++ object into a C application, try with a C++ linke" # Will fail... g++ -std=gnu++0x -Wall -Werror -pedantic -o bar foo.o main.o echo
C++ is not fun. For example in a function:
unsigned char buffer[size]; Is ok to compile with gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic, but fail to compile with g++ -std=gnu++0x -Wall -Werror -pedantic: error: ISO C++ forbids variable length array ‘buffer’
And how do you call a C++ class method from C without a wrapper ?
This will fix all your false claims about outdated and insecure C. Actually C99 provides some additional fun compared to C++0x, the best of all is to use extremely simple symbol naming: you can link C object with anything, you can link C++ object with C++ object only.
I can't shutdown this idea in my head after having read "Microsift and Linux ?" and by remembering the increasingly similitude between the Mango (Windows) and Meego (Linux) mobiles devices to be released by Nokia.
Maybe Microsoft have realized that the consequence of having imposed there OS to most of peoples for so long have the side effect, now that there is a choice, that there are going away from it, simply to have the impression to have made a real choice. Microsoft can't fight against this problem, so there only option is to take revenue from Linux, probably by using fear of patents legal actions. This is overall a bad sign, even if this explain there new apparently friendship with Linux.
Good question. I don't wants to verify every claims from the article. Time is a very complexe thing and it's incredible how many peoples know almost nothing about the time there use every day of there life. The article at some point make a mix between different type of time without a clear explanation. I reacted in a little provocating way, I agree, after not seeing (at this time) any post with good moderation pointing to the local time claim problem.
From the article: "Like other clocks, this one can track seconds, hours, days, and years." This is precisely what is impossible because of what I have wrote in my previouse post. How long is a year in any other systeme than TAI is unknow until the year has finish to be observed, no matter how complexe is the system you use. This clock will be one seconde too early from the first january of 2006. So the claim "can track seconds, hours, days, and years" is false. If you dont' belive me just wait the next new year.
I have read the article and I found no explaination at all about how the clock can calculate the local time including the leap second. Ok, the clock have a synchronization of the earth rotation using the sunlight, but this in no way synchronized to the local time. First current local time is an offset of UTC and UTC is an offet to TAI and TAI is a averge of many atomic clocks, so the basic of our local time is not astronomic, but atomic (http://cr.yp.to/proto/utctai.html). This clock can be a impressive model of the astronomic motion, but this is the wrong way to tel the local time. Second, even for the astronomic motion I have doubts, since I never see a paper telling that the earth axis motion can be know for 10'000 year. But you can find papers that tel exactly the opposite: this motion is largely unpredictable as now for a such long time. See this URL about how complexe is the earth rotation axis http://mb-soft.com/public/precess.html and this URL about why this is impossible to predict at full precision this movement http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Ephemerides/earth_ rot.html. Did you know that such bulltins exists ftp://maia.usno.navy.mil/ser7/iersexp.sup ? Last, did you realiste that the local time is an human concept that have radicaly changed in less than one century ? How can someone assert that this will not change in 10'000 year ? Juste an exemple: the Asian earthquake end last year did have an observable impact on the earth roation, see http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_ earthquake.html. So keep in mind this basic facts: 1) astronomic motion is unpredictable in full precision for long time; 2) local time in based on atomic observation plus offset to keep it compatible with astronomic observation, not the opposit!
Did you realize that the next new year will be after the 31 december 2005 at 23 hour 59 minute and 60 seconde, not 59 seconde ? So this clock will show false time in a few months, no needs to wait 10'000 year!!!
And then make intelectual properties from all possible part of the soft to prevent others to make something similar. Yes this is to protect inovation.. Bullshit!
I agree with you that the register have make an erronouse conclusion. I never talked about battery life in my previouses posts but a also agree with you that it's not common to stress a laptop. You see I need about 40 minutes of full Athlon power at 2.0GHz to compile the project I work on...
Nop. We are talking about Maximum Power on heavy stress. Sur that 35W is *not* the minimal power! And as the next poster point out, 11W is maybe to high for a mobile north bridge, but 27W+6W put Intel solution very near the 35W of AMD.
Of course the bridge do not burn 6W on idle, as the CPU dont burn 35W or 27W on idle. But it's not we are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Sincerely, I also want to know, but I have no real answer why this was so late.
If you look at the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage ordered by years, we can only observe that the women suffrage was archived in many countries in a process running between the 20th century. Switzerland followed this trend lately compared the countries around them. A first federal vote heavily failed in 1959, but the second one succeeded easily in 1971. What's change in 12 years ? Part of the response in from the situation into each of the cantons (states) constitutions witch was largely independent from the federal constitution. Some granted the women suffrage before the federal one, some after, and the latest was even order to do so. The situation was different in each cantons, because the mens mentality about the women role was different. The first task was to change the mens mentality about that.
The interesting observation is that the politic system played a little role in this transition, the biggest role was the change in the mentality of the mens by the womens. A successful vote is an agreement that most have understand a problem an find a common solution. You can't expect a successful vote if the problem is denied. In this regard, the direct democracy only show the current state of thinking of the citizens. This is positive in the sense that you can act based on a known state. You don't have to only speculate about "what the peoples think".
By the way, a change in the constitution voted in a direct democracy is an achievement that at least the majority agree to act accordingly. A change in the constitution without a vote in a direct democracy can frustrate more than the majority of the citizens, not only on the subject of the vote, but also against the government. In a direct democracy, you better have to take before acting. I think this is a good way. Imposing a new rule without consensus is always painful.
Well, I am Swiss. Here the direct democracies is in place since a long time an work pretty well. If you bother to learn a bit about the Switzerland politic you will find that the direct democracies is fare from unworkable.
I observe that a lot of people that only think about the theoretical process of the direct democracies found hard to believe that it work. Some care must be taken here when comparing to the Swiss politic system. Direct democracies here don't work alone. There is a bunch of others features that help to make the system more usable and effective.
First there is the practical problem to make all citizens designing a new change of the constitution. To overcome this, the Swiss citizens elect two legislatives chambers with the proportional system. One is in proportion to the states, and the other is proportion to the peoples. There is an important third player in the legislative process: a relative small group of citizens can start an initiative. Either a new proposal or a counter proposition against the chambers proposals.
Secondly the same problem raise for the daily tasks. Here the solution used is very unique in that the head of state is a federal council of 7 members of the two chambers and are elected by them. All main parties are usually represented in the federal council and there are required to act like a single entity. The president is only a honorific title given for one year to one of the seven, usually on a round basis.
Finally, any change to the constitution must be voted by the citizens, and a small group of citizens can force a vote about a change in the laws. This is here that the direct democracy play the biggest role in the Swiss politic.
And it work. Sure that it work !
A least with direct democracy you need >50% to get this kind of catastrophic result.
In non-direct democracy the government and legislative alone can do that, even if there are 1% of the citizens.
Getting half of a nation against the other half is a difficult process in a direct democracy with the addition of proportional representative. I think this is mostly a theoretical possibility than a practical one.
In live in Switzerland where direct democracy is in place since a long time. Here there is a strong respect of the minority (there is 4 official languages for example) and strangers are even allowed to vote under some conditions. This is far away from a totalitarian system !
I don't share your view that education is a requirement for the direct democracy.
The knowledge of the politics process in Switzerland is almost not studied at all in the standard education track. This is something that you learn when you are adult are take part of the economy. This is not difficult as the media take part of the process and explain each time what the next vote is about. Each citizen get his voting material directly by post many weeks before the vote. The material contain detailed explanation on how you can vote as well as all the relevant information to do it. In addition, you vote many time each years, so you gradually view the voting process as a usual one. This help to concentrate on the subject of the vote.
Secondly, if a nation as a whole did not share a common knowledge about a subject, then the direct democracy have the advantage to simply reflect this fact. This give more opportunity to each citizen to learn about a particular subject, because at the end of the process, there have the last word, not the government alone. As a citizen, you get more power and more responsibility. This tend to make you more concerned and then more willing to learn on the voting subject.
You can compare your particular vote to the national result and get some feeling about that. This help you getting better argument for a future vote about a similar subject. You get involved and interested. You can known on what subject you are in phase with a majority, and on what subject you have a different view. As you vote on subject, you don't have to follow parties views. Recent events in Switzerland have show how it's difficult for a single party to satisfy a majority of citizen on all subjects. In don't think this is even possible at all. Politics by voting for parties don't work as there never reflect all your view and can so easily forget there promises.
So I think that the direct democracy, instead of requiring high educated citizens, tends to "educate" the citizen to the politics process and to take part the national decision. This make the peoples think more about voting subject that parties share (even if actually it's not the case because we renew the legislatives chambers, but this is just a special vote once each 4 years).
Well, "direct democracy" definition is not the point (Swiss elect two legislative chambers, but directly vote the constitution changes). I thinks that the main point is to have enough tools to give back control to the citizens. Proportional representation, direct citizens vote on constitution changes, referendums and initiatives are, all together, a way to make "a more direct democracy" (if not exactly a direct democracy by definition). There can be others ways. I am just pointing out what's in place here. Personally, I think that the the random should play a bigger part in the way citizens can be elected, to lower the power of some coalition.
It's interesting to know that some US states have referendums, but not the federal government. In CH, the referendum and initiative have been granted for the federal government since a long time. More en more states (cantons) changed lately to get them. More recently, the initiative is now possible even in the commune. It has been a top down process here.
You are right about the fact, but I don't agree about your analysis. Not enough womens where concerned about the politics to start changing this rules before this time. There is not a clear explanation about this, but you must observe that the system was fixed and that now the womens play a very big role in the Swiss politic.
You can find others counter-example about the Swiss politics for sure. I don't pretend this is a perfect system that will magically fix any problems. Some aspects of the system (largely unknown into many others countries) give back power to the citizens and I am sure that in many countries, a large chunk of citizens will wants something in that direction.
Unless you use direct democracies, citizens initiatives, citizens amendment and proportional representation.
Here is Switzerland, direct democracy is in place since a long time and work pretty well to moderate the politics. Of course this don't solve magically any problem of the country, but this give a lot of power back to the citizens. There are example of citizens initiatives that have passed despite the government wish, and there are example of government strong proposal that have been rejected by the citizens. Direct democracy work for sure here. This have the side effect to make the overall citizen more concerned and to make the politic less without control.
Part of many country problem is to give too much power to a very small group of people. I live in Switzerland, where proportional representation, direct democracy, constitutional initiative and referendum are in place since a long time. Those "politic tools" tends to give back some government controls to the citizens, effectively making harder for a small but powerful entity to impose his view alone. Citizens are more concerned and informed about the politic process and get very often the responsibility to vote on almost any changes of the constitution. That way, the citizen tend to think as a part of the nation, not as a supporter or opponent to an elected majority.
This is very observable in the media. Most country new is only about what the citizens will face after government decisions or about election of the next government (if not only the president). Here, the citizen actions are more visible. It's usual to vote to choose between constitution changes proposed by the government or by a group of citizens. This bring some pressure to the politics to present acceptable changes.
Hi Mr. "Very easy to do". I let you try to fix this test script. Good luck...
echo "***** Cleanup *****"
rm -f main.c main.cpp foo.c foo.cpp bar
echo
echo "A C object"
echo "int foo(void) { return 1; }" > foo.c
gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic -c -o foo.o foo.c
echo
echo "A C++ application"
echo "extern \"C\" { int foo(); } int main(void) { return foo(); }" > main.cpp
g++ -std=gnu++0x -Wall -Werror -pedantic -c -o main.o main.cpp
echo
echo "Use a C object into a C++ application"
g++ -std=gnu++0x -Wall -Werror -pedantic -o bar foo.o main.o
echo
echo "***** Cleanup *****"
rm -f main.c main.cpp foo.c foo.cpp bar
echo
echo "A C++ object"
echo "int foo(void) { return 1; }" > foo.cpp
g++ -std=gnu++0x -Wall -Werror -pedantic -c -o foo.o foo.cpp
echo
echo "A C application"
# There is no such thing like 'extern "C++"'...
echo "int foo(); int main(void) { return foo(); }" > main.c
gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic -c -o main.o main.c
echo
echo "Use a C++ object into a C application, try with a C linker"
# Will fail...
gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic -o bar foo.o main.o
echo
echo "Use a C++ object into a C application, try with a C++ linke"
# Will fail...
g++ -std=gnu++0x -Wall -Werror -pedantic -o bar foo.o main.o
echo
C++ is not fun. For example in a function:
unsigned char buffer[size];
Is ok to compile with gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic, but fail to compile with g++ -std=gnu++0x -Wall -Werror -pedantic:
error: ISO C++ forbids variable length array ‘buffer’
And how do you call a C++ class method from C without a wrapper ?
CFLAGS+=-std=gnu99 -Wall -Werror -pedantic
This will fix all your false claims about outdated and insecure C. Actually C99 provides some additional fun compared to C++0x, the best of all is to use extremely simple symbol naming: you can link C object with anything, you can link C++ object with C++ object only.
I can't shutdown this idea in my head after having read "Microsift and Linux ?" and by remembering the increasingly similitude between the Mango (Windows) and Meego (Linux) mobiles devices to be released by Nokia.
Maybe Microsoft have realized that the consequence of having imposed there OS to most of peoples for so long have the side effect, now that there is a choice, that there are going away from it, simply to have the impression to have made a real choice. Microsoft can't fight against this problem, so there only option is to take revenue from Linux, probably by using fear of patents legal actions. This is overall a bad sign, even if this explain there new apparently friendship with Linux.
Good question. I don't wants to verify every claims from the article. Time is a very complexe thing and it's incredible how many peoples know almost nothing about the time there use every day of there life. The article at some point make a mix between different type of time without a clear explanation. I reacted in a little provocating way, I agree, after not seeing (at this time) any post with good moderation pointing to the local time claim problem.
From the article: "Like other clocks, this one can track seconds, hours, days, and years." This is precisely what is impossible because of what I have wrote in my previouse post. How long is a year in any other systeme than TAI is unknow until the year has finish to be observed, no matter how complexe is the system you use. This clock will be one seconde too early from the first january of 2006. So the claim "can track seconds, hours, days, and years" is false. If you dont' belive me just wait the next new year.
I have read the article and I found no explaination at all about how the clock can calculate the local time including the leap second. Ok, the clock have a synchronization of the earth rotation using the sunlight, but this in no way synchronized to the local time. First current local time is an offset of UTC and UTC is an offet to TAI and TAI is a averge of many atomic clocks, so the basic of our local time is not astronomic, but atomic (http://cr.yp.to/proto/utctai.html). This clock can be a impressive model of the astronomic motion, but this is the wrong way to tel the local time. Second, even for the astronomic motion I have doubts, since I never see a paper telling that the earth axis motion can be know for 10'000 year. But you can find papers that tel exactly the opposite: this motion is largely unpredictable as now for a such long time. See this URL about how complexe is the earth rotation axis http://mb-soft.com/public/precess.html and this URL about why this is impossible to predict at full precision this movement http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Ephemerides/earth_ rot.html. Did you know that such bulltins exists ftp://maia.usno.navy.mil/ser7/iersexp.sup ? Last, did you realiste that the local time is an human concept that have radicaly changed in less than one century ? How can someone assert that this will not change in 10'000 year ? Juste an exemple: the Asian earthquake end last year did have an observable impact on the earth roation, see http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_ earthquake.html. So keep in mind this basic facts: 1) astronomic motion is unpredictable in full precision for long time; 2) local time in based on atomic observation plus offset to keep it compatible with astronomic observation, not the opposit!
Because this depend of the earth roation speed variation that no one can predict for a such long time now.
t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.da
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/whatiseop.html
Last prediction are for one year ahead at most:
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/ser7/ser7.dat
Did you realize that the next new year will be after the 31 december 2005 at 23 hour 59 minute and 60 seconde, not 59 seconde ? So this clock will show false time in a few months, no needs to wait 10'000 year!!!
Yes. Normal governments controls there country, but U.S. government wants to controls the world...
I sucess with gcc 3.3.5:
gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)
Only get 4 smalls warnings.
Tested on a Debian Sarge:
3 2b-source.zip
./unix/cons
/usr/local/games/quake3/baseq3/* ~/.q3a/baseq3/
./linuxquake3
# Get the code
wget ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/quake3-1.
mkdir q3a
cd q3a
unzip quake3-1.32b-source.zip
cd quake3-1.32b
# Transformation for UNIX
find -type f -exec dos2unix {} \;
# Compiling
cd code
# Result
cd install
find -ls
# Install the packs
# You needs to original files!
# I do not find them in the source.
cp -a
# Playing
And then make intelectual properties from all possible part of the soft to prevent others to make something similar. Yes this is to protect inovation.. Bullshit!
Oops! I say 100GHz, of course...
Ok, ok... 100MHz will be fine for me :-)
I agree with you that the register have make an erronouse conclusion. I never talked about battery life in my previouses posts but a also agree with you that it's not common to stress a laptop. You see I need about 40 minutes of full Athlon power at 2.0GHz to compile the project I work on...
Nop. We are talking about Maximum Power on heavy stress. Sur that 35W is *not* the minimal power! And as the next poster point out, 11W is maybe to high for a mobile north bridge, but 27W+6W put Intel solution very near the 35W of AMD.
Of course the bridge do not burn 6W on idle, as the CPU dont burn 35W or 27W on idle. But it's not we are talking about.