look at the real figures (those percentages are bogus and you know that).
Funny- those percentages are the "real figures" as published by the IRS. In other words, even if the rich are paying accountants to find them tons of loopholes, they are still paying a lot more taxes that the poor.
These are more than just crazy economic theories- they are proven to bring results. Look at the Ronald Reagan years. Reagan drastically cut taxes, and look at what happened: our economy grew at a whopping 3.2%/year, and everybody's income increased. But it gets better- the poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income compared to a 2.5% increase of families that made over $75,000/year (the wealthy), and minorities saw an 11% increase in income over the same period! The poorest demographics benefitted the most from "Reaganomics".
So not only is your 'Screw the rich' plan unfair, it doesn't work. It punishes success and the whole economy suffers.
The fact that they can hide income and avoid paying their percentage tells volumes.
And the fact that you are still arguing this point shows that you didn't understand the statistics that the AC quoted. I suggest you read that post again- the richest 1% accounts for 20% of all taxable income, but they pay over 37% of the income taxes. You got that? 20% of the income pays 37% of the taxes- what do you know, it is progressive! To put it another way, the "bottom" 99% earns 80% of all taxable income, but they only pay 63% of all income taxes. If the rich are hiding a bunch of income as you claim, then they aren't doing a very good job because they are still paying the lion's share of taxes.
President GWB has spent more money than any of the last 16 presidents in one fiscal year.
Heh- the budget has increased every year with few exceptions for the past 100 years, so the same can be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagon, Carter, etc. Your statement is meaningless.
Lol Spending on Human Resources somehow equates Education, Social Services, Health, Medicare (btw these are all the same thing! lol), and Social Security? I guess making shit up is good.
All I can say is, read the budget report that I linked to, because its pretty obvious you didn't.
The justification for invading Iraq was to force compliance. Saddam was required by 17 unanimous UN resolutions to prove that he had disarmed, and he never did. Nobody disputes that- not even people like Mr Chirac or Mr Blix. If the goal had merely been disarmament, then another 12+ years of UN inspections might have even worked, but it would have worked at the cost of the continued torture and oppression of the Iraqi people, a continued threat to our national security, and it would give other crazy 3rd world despot leaders incentive to misbehave. Nothing short of full compliance was acceptable.
Now if Saddam quietly destroyed all of his weapons in secret, especially in the face of such intense international pressure, then he is crazier (and stupider) than we all thought. He could have avoided 12 years of sanctions, repeated bombings, and a full-scale invasion if he had only showed the world proof. The world knew he had weapons- we even saw him use some of them. But instead he played the system for 12 years, so it was a very reasonable assumption that he still had the weapons. But the point is this- the world told him to do something and he didn't do it. Whether or not he still actually had WMDs (and I still think some will be found) is irrelevant.
Now the reason for going into Iraq when we did was because of our 9/11 wake up call- we realized that we can't afford to have a sworn enemy of our country collecting illegal weapons. The fact that Saddam is sitting on huge natural resources that can finance almost anything he wants set Iraq apart from other rouge nations (ex: the DPRK- they can't afford squat).
Were the WMD allegations trumped up? Maybe, but that seems very unlikely to me. Why would we lie about that when we knew that the truth would come out after our invasion? In fact, the truth is coming out because of the invasion.
If you don't think what we've done in Iraq will increase and perpetuate terrorism, then you probably are completely devoid of any ability to think logically.
Ah, I don't agree with you, therefore I am devoid of any ability to think logically. Thatâ(TM)s a pretty good debate tactic.
I think that a stable and free Iraq, as well as a dedication to the mid-east peace process, will do wonders for our relations with that part of the world. These things will take time, but it looks like to me like progress is being made.
As for the rest of your arguments, well when Warren Buffet comes out against Bush's tax cuts and says it unfairly benefits the wealthy, what do you say in response.
Yes, Warren Buffet is against the tax cuts. Warren Buffet is also a regular contributor to the Democratic Party. He is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to disagree.
The fact is, the wealthy already pay most of the taxes (the richest 50% pay over 96% of all income taxes- Source). It stands to reason that they will benefit more in a tax cut. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If you care to do some research, the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and the shrinking of the middle class are causes for real concern.
Ok- here is some research. Let's look at the last substantial tax cut before this one- the tax cuts during President Reagan's administration. Under the Reagan administration, every income bracket showed an increase in real income, but families making under $50,000/year had a 5.9% increase compared to the 2.5% increase of families that made over $75,000/year. During this same period, the poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income, and minorities had an 11% increase in income. And just today CNN ran a story that the number of millionaires is shrinking. So much for your "growing disparity" between the rich and the poor.
The reasons were not ficticious. Our justifications for going to war were actually quite independant of whether or not we find WMDs in Iraq.
which will increase terrorism
There is absolutely no way you can make that claim. In fact, from where I am sitting, the President has done a pretty good job at reducing terrorism- there has not been a substantial attack against us since 9/11.
driving the economy into a train-wreck
The economy was already a train wreck when President Bush took office. Not only that, but we have since found out that a lot of the economic success of the late 1990's was not even real (the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals all date back into the 1990's).
and increasing spending to Reaganite levels
Total government spending in 2002 was 19.5% of the GDP, and that is substantially lower than many of the Clinton years (Clinton spent more than that through 1997- Source). The increase from 2001 to 2002 can mainly be attributed to the War on Terrorism.
the goal is destroy all social programs while benefitting the rich.
You might notice from the Budget document linked above that spending on Human Resources (Education, social services, health, medicare, social security) has increased under President Bush.
And don't you get tired of the same old class warfare arguments?
Iraq wanted to make WMDs. So does North Korea. Iraq was sitting on tons of oil to finance their WMD programs. North Korea doesnt have crap.
Therefore, Iraq posed a bigger threat than North Korea because Iraq had more means to pursue WMD. In that respect, it was about oil. This isn't a surprizing revelation, though.
Re:shareholders..
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What the hell are you talking about?
First of all, inflation is not out of control. On the contrary, many economists are worried about deflation now.
And what on earth makes you think that people making money on the stock market leads to high inflation? Even during the height of the.com boom, inflation was very much under control. Inflation topped out at a very reasonable 3.38% in 2000 (compare that with the Jimmy Carter administration's 13.48% in 1980).
Man. That is some of the most convoluted logic I have ever seen.
Let's start with your assessment of capitalism vs. democracy. While you have that handy dictionary of yours open, look up the word 'private', as in "private or corporate ownership of capital goods". An economic system where anybody but the government owns the goods does not contradict a democracy "for the people" in any way. Capitalism is an economic system with the same goals as a democratic government- to limit the power of the government. Capitalism and democracy can (and do) coexist without any contradiction.
Your comparison of capitalism and feudalism is equally flawed. Keep in mind that under capitalism, you own your fate. If you are unhappy with your "lord", then move on to a different lord or become a lord yourself. Let's see you do that under feudalism...
About the PATRIOT act- I suggest that instead of relying on biased op-ed pieces or political commentary, you should go straight to the facts (all 300+ pages of it). In fact- here is the text of the PATRIOT Act. Show me where that allows for "abductions" by the government (hint: it doesn't), or what is now closed for scrutiny under the law (hint: everything that required a judge's approval before the PATRIOT Act still does). I know it's popular here to bash PATRIOT, but at least read what you are complaining about.
History has shown time and time again that when small companies are allowed to flourish that our economy is more stable, better off, and more flexible to change. Mega-lithic corporations are the bane of our existence.
Um, what history has shown us is that our current economic system has done more good for more people than any other economic system EVER. Recent history has also shown us that most abusive "mega-lithic" corporations are regulated by the market (that is, the people), and only a few have required government intervention (like Rockefeller).
I'd also like you to reconcile these two statements: The answer is to force companies to do what is right and What? Does the US Government always know what is right for me?
If we are to force companies to do what is right, then who decides what is right? By your own admission, the government can't always be trusted with that decision.
the answer is to force companies to split into smaller companies.
Punishing successful people will not help anything- it will only discourage others from trying. And allowing the government to decide how successful you are allowed to be will not give you the power that you seek.
The ability of people to be detained with no lawyer without a reason:
The PATRIOT act does no such thing. In fact, section 236A[b][1] guarantees all individuals a petition of habeus corpus as well as an appeal if their petition is denied. And notice NYTimes article you cited has absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT act, and all of the people in that article were detained for a reason (they were here illegally).
They have proven themselves to be nothing more than a corporate PR agency:
How does a partisan op-ed about the tax-cuts "prove" anything about the administration? All it proves is that Bob Herbert is as anti-Bush as ever.
Q. Why are ZIP+4 Codes used? A. In 1983, the Postal Service began using an expanded ZIP Code called "ZIP+4." A ZIP+4 Code consists of the original 5-digit ZIP Code plus a 4-digit add-on code. The 4-digit add-on number identifies a geographic segment within the 5-digit delivery area, such as a city block, office building, individual high-volume receiver of mail, or any other unit that would aid efficient mail sorting and delivery.
Way to think this through. By your logic, Ford should also stop advertising during football games because its just a huge expense. In fact, all companies should just stop advertising completely! Just think of all of the money they could save!
There is a reason AOL spends the money to mail the CDs- it gets more people to subscribe!
Well, aside from its partisan conclusions, I thought the USCCR actually backs up his "version" pretty well.
And don't be fooled- that USCCR report is nothing more than a partisan attack by some bitter democrats. In fact, the only republican on the commission solidly thrashed the conclusions in her dissenting opinion.
There are a lot of people that disagree with the findings of that commission. Here is a statistical analysis by a Yale professor that comes to the exact opposite conclusion as the USCCR:
It is difficult to see any evidence that African-Americans in Florida were systematically discriminated against in terms of voting. Even assuming that cross-sectional evidence is useful in evaluating this claim, it appears more consistent with indicating that the problem was worst in those counties where African-Americans were county election supervisors. It is difficult to reconcile that evidence with some notion that there was intent to disqualify African-American voters. The panel data makes it very difficult to ascertain any systematic bias either intentional or unintentional against African-American voters.
There may be imperfections in our voting system, and those should be addressed (and some of them have been citing that NAACP settlement referenced by the parent), but this is a total non-story to the partisan whiners that want to make this into a huge right-wing conspiracy- the facts just dont support that.
It doesn't matter who the data or IP belongs to- a good DRM system can protect your data just as much as it can protect the recording/movie/software industry's data.
And has AMD had even close to as many bugs as intel?
Yes. Every CPU on the market has bugs. I remember Palimino had a nasty bug with cache coherency that AMD was reluctant to fix. The only difference is that Intel is on a lot more systems than AMD, so it is a lot more noticable.
But unlike an mp3 file, there are lots of ways that an HTML file can be presented (text only like Lynx, spoken out loud for the blind, etc). Some of these do not infringe upon the patent, but it is the same "infringing" HTML file. Therefore, a strong argument could be made that the website is not infringing on the patent, but the web browser's rendering is. Lets see SBC go after Internet Explorer instead.
Actually, this is the kind of crap that drives me nuts about California. Why the hell do they think that they have any business messing with product warranties? Its crap like this that adds up to a $30+ billion deficit...
Newsflash- life isn't fair, and it never will be. But guess what- everybody still has the opportunity. In fact, according to this address to a Federal Reserve Review board, the vast majority of the rich people in the US earned their money through their own hard work:
Most of the rich are entrepreneurs, and most have earned their wealth. Inheritance accounts for about 8 percent of the net worth of these households in the aggregate. More than half have never inherited anything, and inherited wealth is less than 10 percent of total wealth for more than two-thirds of those who have.
Only 8% of the rich inherited their wealth- the rest started from scratch and earned it. These people are not doing anything that most poor people couldn't do with some effort.
From reading the description, I think she misses the point in that book. Trying to find another $7/hour job is not the kind of effort that will break you out of the cycle. Take a step back and analyze why you are only able to get a $7/hour job - is it education? Is it job skills or training? Is it ambition? Changing these things is not easy, but it is definitely possible.
Unfortunately it is easier to sit around and bemoan how unfair the world is while you wait for somebody else to bail you out.
You see, that is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. Instead of whining about how many refrigerators a rich guy has, why don't you take some responsibility and try to better your situation? Everybody has plenty of opportunity for wealth- it just takes effort. Poor people are not poor because some rich person stepped all over them. In fact, thats the attitude that keeps them poor.
The integrated memory controller has some obvious advantages, but I think its going to cause a lot of problems for AMD. Judging by AMD's recent performace with deadlines, the constant product refreshes that will be needed to keep up with new memory technologies will be difficult for them. And think of the confusion after a few product refreshes- are they going to assign a new model number to each new chip with different memory capabilities?
This study concludes that the P4 processor could be improved by increasing the pipeline depth. They theorize that the optimum pipeline depth for the processor is around 50 stages- more than double than its current 20 stage pipeline.
The way I see it, increasing the pipeline depth allows you to increase the clock speed. Sure you aren't doing as much per clock, but the increases in the clock speed more than make up for this (we have seen this in the P4 vs the Athlon over the past year). And to top it off, the higher clock frequencies are much easier to market.
Time will tell if AMD can use Opteron/Hammer and their SOI processes overcome thier problems scaling the clock. Otherwise Opteron's triumph might be pretty short lived.
Slashdot Mirror
look at the real figures (those percentages are bogus and you know that).
Funny- those percentages are the "real figures" as published by the IRS. In other words, even if the rich are paying accountants to find them tons of loopholes, they are still paying a lot more taxes that the poor.
These are more than just crazy economic theories- they are proven to bring results. Look at the Ronald Reagan years. Reagan drastically cut taxes, and look at what happened: our economy grew at a whopping 3.2%/year, and everybody's income increased. But it gets better- the poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income compared to a 2.5% increase of families that made over $75,000/year (the wealthy), and minorities saw an 11% increase in income over the same period! The poorest demographics benefitted the most from "Reaganomics".
So not only is your 'Screw the rich' plan unfair, it doesn't work. It punishes success and the whole economy suffers.
The fact that they can hide income and avoid paying their percentage tells volumes.
And the fact that you are still arguing this point shows that you didn't understand the statistics that the AC quoted. I suggest you read that post again- the richest 1% accounts for 20% of all taxable income, but they pay over 37% of the income taxes. You got that? 20% of the income pays 37% of the taxes- what do you know, it is progressive! To put it another way, the "bottom" 99% earns 80% of all taxable income, but they only pay 63% of all income taxes. If the rich are hiding a bunch of income as you claim, then they aren't doing a very good job because they are still paying the lion's share of taxes.
President GWB has spent more money than any of the last 16 presidents in one fiscal year.
Heh- the budget has increased every year with few exceptions for the past 100 years, so the same can be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagon, Carter, etc. Your statement is meaningless.
Lol Spending on Human Resources somehow equates Education, Social Services, Health, Medicare (btw these are all the same thing! lol), and Social Security? I guess making shit up is good.
All I can say is, read the budget report that I linked to, because its pretty obvious you didn't.
The justification for invading Iraq was to force compliance. Saddam was required by 17 unanimous UN resolutions to prove that he had disarmed, and he never did. Nobody disputes that- not even people like Mr Chirac or Mr Blix. If the goal had merely been disarmament, then another 12+ years of UN inspections might have even worked, but it would have worked at the cost of the continued torture and oppression of the Iraqi people, a continued threat to our national security, and it would give other crazy 3rd world despot leaders incentive to misbehave. Nothing short of full compliance was acceptable.
Now if Saddam quietly destroyed all of his weapons in secret, especially in the face of such intense international pressure, then he is crazier (and stupider) than we all thought. He could have avoided 12 years of sanctions, repeated bombings, and a full-scale invasion if he had only showed the world proof. The world knew he had weapons- we even saw him use some of them. But instead he played the system for 12 years, so it was a very reasonable assumption that he still had the weapons. But the point is this- the world told him to do something and he didn't do it. Whether or not he still actually had WMDs (and I still think some will be found) is irrelevant.
Now the reason for going into Iraq when we did was because of our 9/11 wake up call- we realized that we can't afford to have a sworn enemy of our country collecting illegal weapons. The fact that Saddam is sitting on huge natural resources that can finance almost anything he wants set Iraq apart from other rouge nations (ex: the DPRK- they can't afford squat).
Were the WMD allegations trumped up? Maybe, but that seems very unlikely to me. Why would we lie about that when we knew that the truth would come out after our invasion? In fact, the truth is coming out because of the invasion.
If you don't think what we've done in Iraq will increase and perpetuate terrorism, then you probably are completely devoid of any ability to think logically.
Ah, I don't agree with you, therefore I am devoid of any ability to think logically. Thatâ(TM)s a pretty good debate tactic.
I think that a stable and free Iraq, as well as a dedication to the mid-east peace process, will do wonders for our relations with that part of the world. These things will take time, but it looks like to me like progress is being made.
As for the rest of your arguments, well when Warren Buffet comes out against Bush's tax cuts and says it unfairly benefits the wealthy, what do you say in response.
Yes, Warren Buffet is against the tax cuts. Warren Buffet is also a regular contributor to the Democratic Party. He is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to disagree.
The fact is, the wealthy already pay most of the taxes (the richest 50% pay over 96% of all income taxes- Source). It stands to reason that they will benefit more in a tax cut. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If you care to do some research, the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and the shrinking of the middle class are causes for real concern.
Ok- here is some research. Let's look at the last substantial tax cut before this one- the tax cuts during President Reagan's administration. Under the Reagan administration, every income bracket showed an increase in real income, but families making under $50,000/year had a 5.9% increase compared to the 2.5% increase of families that made over $75,000/year. During this same period, the poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income, and minorities had an 11% increase in income. And just today CNN ran a story that the number of millionaires is shrinking. So much for your "growing disparity" between the rich and the poor.
sending troops off to war for ficticious reasons
The reasons were not ficticious. Our justifications for going to war were actually quite independant of whether or not we find WMDs in Iraq.
which will increase terrorism
There is absolutely no way you can make that claim. In fact, from where I am sitting, the President has done a pretty good job at reducing terrorism- there has not been a substantial attack against us since 9/11.
driving the economy into a train-wreck
The economy was already a train wreck when President Bush took office. Not only that, but we have since found out that a lot of the economic success of the late 1990's was not even real (the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals all date back into the 1990's).
and increasing spending to Reaganite levels
Total government spending in 2002 was 19.5% of the GDP, and that is substantially lower than many of the Clinton years (Clinton spent more than that through 1997- Source). The increase from 2001 to 2002 can mainly be attributed to the War on Terrorism.
the goal is destroy all social programs while benefitting the rich.
You might notice from the Budget document linked above that spending on Human Resources (Education, social services, health, medicare, social security) has increased under President Bush.
And don't you get tired of the same old class warfare arguments?
I think he was saying this:
Iraq wanted to make WMDs.
So does North Korea.
Iraq was sitting on tons of oil to finance their WMD programs.
North Korea doesnt have crap.
Therefore, Iraq posed a bigger threat than North Korea because Iraq had more means to pursue WMD. In that respect, it was about oil. This isn't a surprizing revelation, though.
What the hell are you talking about?
.com boom, inflation was very much under control. Inflation topped out at a very reasonable 3.38% in 2000 (compare that with the Jimmy Carter administration's 13.48% in 1980).
First of all, inflation is not out of control. On the contrary, many economists are worried about deflation now.
And what on earth makes you think that people making money on the stock market leads to high inflation? Even during the height of the
Man. That is some of the most convoluted logic I have ever seen.
Let's start with your assessment of capitalism vs. democracy. While you have that handy dictionary of yours open, look up the word 'private', as in "private or corporate ownership of capital goods". An economic system where anybody but the government owns the goods does not contradict a democracy "for the people" in any way. Capitalism is an economic system with the same goals as a democratic government- to limit the power of the government. Capitalism and democracy can (and do) coexist without any contradiction.
Your comparison of capitalism and feudalism is equally flawed. Keep in mind that under capitalism, you own your fate. If you are unhappy with your "lord", then move on to a different lord or become a lord yourself. Let's see you do that under feudalism...
About the PATRIOT act- I suggest that instead of relying on biased op-ed pieces or political commentary, you should go straight to the facts (all 300+ pages of it). In fact- here is the text of the PATRIOT Act. Show me where that allows for "abductions" by the government (hint: it doesn't), or what is now closed for scrutiny under the law (hint: everything that required a judge's approval before the PATRIOT Act still does). I know it's popular here to bash PATRIOT, but at least read what you are complaining about.
History has shown time and time again that when small companies are allowed to flourish that our economy is more stable, better off, and more flexible to change. Mega-lithic corporations are the bane of our existence.
Um, what history has shown us is that our current economic system has done more good for more people than any other economic system EVER. Recent history has also shown us that most abusive "mega-lithic" corporations are regulated by the market (that is, the people), and only a few have required government intervention (like Rockefeller).
I'd also like you to reconcile these two statements:
The answer is to force companies to do what is right
and
What? Does the US Government always know what is right for me?
If we are to force companies to do what is right, then who decides what is right? By your own admission, the government can't always be trusted with that decision.
the answer is to force companies to split into smaller companies.
Punishing successful people will not help anything- it will only discourage others from trying. And allowing the government to decide how successful you are allowed to be will not give you the power that you seek.
The ability of people to be detained with no lawyer without a reason:
The PATRIOT act does no such thing. In fact, section 236A[b][1] guarantees all individuals a petition of habeus corpus as well as an appeal if their petition is denied. And notice NYTimes article you cited has absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT act, and all of the people in that article were detained for a reason (they were here illegally).
They have proven themselves to be nothing more than a corporate PR agency:
How does a partisan op-ed about the tax-cuts "prove" anything about the administration? All it proves is that Bob Herbert is as anti-Bush as ever.
Not really- it can, but most cases it doesnt.
http://www.usps.com/zip4/zipfaq.htm
Way to think this through. By your logic, Ford should also stop advertising during football games because its just a huge expense. In fact, all companies should just stop advertising completely! Just think of all of the money they could save!
There is a reason AOL spends the money to mail the CDs- it gets more people to subscribe!
And don't be fooled- that USCCR report is nothing more than a partisan attack by some bitter democrats. In fact, the only republican on the commission solidly thrashed the conclusions in her dissenting opinion.
There are a lot of people that disagree with the findings of that commission. Here is a statistical analysis by a Yale professor that comes to the exact opposite conclusion as the USCCR:There may be imperfections in our voting system, and those should be addressed (and some of them have been citing that NAACP settlement referenced by the parent), but this is a total non-story to the partisan whiners that want to make this into a huge right-wing conspiracy- the facts just dont support that.
It doesn't matter who the data or IP belongs to- a good DRM system can protect your data just as much as it can protect the recording/movie/software industry's data.
you'll eventually lose bad schemes like DRM.
Correction- you will lose bad schemes like poorly implemented DRM. DRM itself is neither good nor bad, but Intuit's implementation was pretty bad.
you can't dl a patch for a chip
I guess you haven't heard of microcode patches...
And has AMD had even close to as many bugs as intel?
Yes. Every CPU on the market has bugs. I remember Palimino had a nasty bug with cache coherency that AMD was reluctant to fix. The only difference is that Intel is on a lot more systems than AMD, so it is a lot more noticable.
California has a hugh stake in the tech industry, when it went down so did the rest of the Californian economy
It is his fault that he increased state spending buy double digits in each of his first 3 years in office, though.
*gasp* The Horror! A company that actually wants to maximize profits!!! How dare they?
Nope. They are #3 behind Saudi Arabia and Mexico.
r y.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycount
But unlike an mp3 file, there are lots of ways that an HTML file can be presented (text only like Lynx, spoken out loud for the blind, etc). Some of these do not infringe upon the patent, but it is the same "infringing" HTML file. Therefore, a strong argument could be made that the website is not infringing on the patent, but the web browser's rendering is. Lets see SBC go after Internet Explorer instead.
Actually, this is the kind of crap that drives me nuts about California. Why the hell do they think that they have any business messing with product warranties? Its crap like this that adds up to a $30+ billion deficit...
From reading the description, I think she misses the point in that book. Trying to find another $7/hour job is not the kind of effort that will break you out of the cycle. Take a step back and analyze why you are only able to get a $7/hour job - is it education? Is it job skills or training? Is it ambition? Changing these things is not easy, but it is definitely possible.
Unfortunately it is easier to sit around and bemoan how unfair the world is while you wait for somebody else to bail you out.
You see, that is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. Instead of whining about how many refrigerators a rich guy has, why don't you take some responsibility and try to better your situation? Everybody has plenty of opportunity for wealth- it just takes effort. Poor people are not poor because some rich person stepped all over them. In fact, thats the attitude that keeps them poor.
The integrated memory controller has some obvious advantages, but I think its going to cause a lot of problems for AMD. Judging by AMD's recent performace with deadlines, the constant product refreshes that will be needed to keep up with new memory technologies will be difficult for them. And think of the confusion after a few product refreshes- are they going to assign a new model number to each new chip with different memory capabilities?
In fact, they have effectively already done this, but call them pipeline stages.
r s/Deep%20Pipes.pdf
Intel did not just randomly increase the pipeline depth for kicks- it was a very specific design decision based on a lot of research. For example:
http://systems.cs.colorado.edu/ISCA2002/FinalPape
This study concludes that the P4 processor could be improved by increasing the pipeline depth. They theorize that the optimum pipeline depth for the processor is around 50 stages- more than double than its current 20 stage pipeline.
The way I see it, increasing the pipeline depth allows you to increase the clock speed. Sure you aren't doing as much per clock, but the increases in the clock speed more than make up for this (we have seen this in the P4 vs the Athlon over the past year). And to top it off, the higher clock frequencies are much easier to market.
Time will tell if AMD can use Opteron/Hammer and their SOI processes overcome thier problems scaling the clock. Otherwise Opteron's triumph might be pretty short lived.