But isn't "simple, well-defined, successful" hallmarks of most hobbies? Work sucks and a career is a minefield of politics never completely under your own control, but a hobby, be it woodworking, car repair, rock climbing, painting, or gaming or whatever are characterized by being more or less completely under my control and completable in a reasonable time frame.
Well-defined, yes. Simple or successful? No, not really. In fact, many hobbies are characterized by a lack of success, like the amateur mechanic who has been working for literally years on an old engine. For some the tinkering itself is the end-goal, but for others they actually want to achieve the well-defined goal of "the engine runs again", but it eludes them, and that's okay. Though if "well-defined" is supposed to mean that the necessary steps are well defined, then even that doesn't necessarily apply.
Rock climbing strikes me as an even better example for contrasting with WoW. In WoW, when you beat a Dungeon or Raid and get the gear from it, then you are well equipped to be successful in the next higher-level one. If you can master the strategies for one raid boss, odds are you already have the mental skills (don't stand in the fire!) to do the next one. In rock climbing, the goals are well defined (reach the top, reach the top without falling, reach the top without falling without ever having seen the route before), but that hardly makes it simple or success likely just because you've done the previous lower-level route. Just because you can easily finish a 5.9 doesn't mean you won't be flailing on the first few 5.10 you come across, and then once you've mastered those you'll take on a 5.11 and realize it's gone to a whole 'nother level and you need a whole new set of skills and strategies. Sometimes some of these routes can become major obstacles that it takes a long time to solve. I spent about two years trying off and on to finish this one 5.11a, it was like a pet project that I kept coming back to. Yeah the goal was well-defined, but how was anything but clear, and success anything but assured.
A person who is attracted to continual and incremental success is not going to be a rock climber for long.
I do like WoW, and there's nothing wrong with that, and I agree that addictive personality types are outliers that come up in a lot of places. But I also recognize that MMOGs are operating on a different level than many other hobbies. The link the GP posted about "performance" vs "mastery" orientations I think spells it out quite well. RPGs give you a never-ending series of essentially inevitable improvements and victories. Not every game or hobby does this.
Unless you are trying to show how effective the counter-terrorism operations have been
Ha ha ha ha! Oh man that's a good one -- "effective"!
Dude, we can't stop Teh Terrorists when their own fathers call us up to narc on them! There's no way you can call our counter-terrorism efforts "effective". Certainly you wouldn't say that about our counter-terrorism prior to 9/11, since it involved violating fewer liberties and liberty = teh terrorist kills you. But yet the death toll for that period even including the failure to stop 9/11 is still incredibly low.
I'm just pointing out what you already know of course, but I can't help it. You should get a new account called AwesomeTrollGuy, because you're really hitting it out of the park today.
So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.
Actually, according to TFA, all these "nonexistent emergencies" and requests for records having nothing to do with actual terrorism overloaded the FBI's communications analysts, which one can reasonably guess hindered their efforts to find actual terrorist threats.
Oh but don't let practical consequences get in the way of that pretty "Liberty or Safety" false dichotomy. I mean it's so nice and obvious if you don't think about it even the tiniest bit.
Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules. I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough. I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.
It's not uncommon in the US either for improperly acquired evidence to be invalidated, and depending on the importance of that evidence for the accused to walk. That's generally been the "teeth" in the 4th Amendment and the rules of evidence. It's why cops always read you your Miranda Rights, because Miranda was a guy who was pretty much as guilty as they come but was tricked into thinking he didn't have any rights and had to confess, so his confession was thrown out and he walked.
The thing is, it's not clear that any of these investigations resulted in actual arrests or charges or anything. It's not clear to what purpose they were getting these records. All I can see from the article is that the agents got these records by invoking "nonexistent emergencies". Well if the emergency was non-existent, it's not hard to imagine that the crime was non-existent too.
The impression I get is basically the FBI going on fishing expeditions. Fishing expeditions that not only came to naught and violated civil liberties, but also overloaded their communications analysts with crap that had nothing to do with actual terrorist threats. So the FBI's counsel can say that they only "technically" violated the law but that the agents were only trying to stop the next terrorist attack, and hey that might even be true, but the practical result was they made it harder to stop the real terrorist threats with their sloppy and illegal work.
Hey, who would have thought that the FBI "technically" violating the law would be a bad thing both to those who value civil liberties, and to "Ends justify the means" types?
Well I don't know about you, but my job consists of more than merely having my posterior in a chair. It's not hard to be too sick to do much productive work, but well enough to play video games. Video games are much easier and there's no consequence for massive failure. Work is more challenging, for me anyway. I can be running a fever, stoned off NyQuil, and sneezing constantly and still play video games between naps. It's hard to get much work done that way.
And trying to do that at work, risking getting everyone around me sick (so they can take it home and get their families sick) is a serious dick move. So don't be an asshole, stay home if you're sick.
Fortunately I can work from home, so when I'm not too sick to get work done (but it would still be a dick move to come into work) I still can.
After acquiring the aircraft, the owner could attach nonfunctional mockups for pure show.
That's a good point, but I thought what they were getting at was does the plane merely lack the weapons themselves, as in if you could get your hands on some suitable weapons you'd have an armed fighter. Weapon systems encompasses a lot more than just the weapons or the hardpoints, so it'd be rather moot whether the hardpoints were there or not since that's a lot easier to replace than the weapon electronics which they are surely ripping out.
But if they meant they just wanted to use them to mount replicas, that's a great idea.
Just fyi, I'm only replying to this part because it's the only part of your brilliant post I can take any issue with.
The problem is that the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American Citizens, UNLESS they are monitoring overseas communications. This exception has always been allowed, no warrant necessary. There is no law that states that I have the constitutional right to conspire with enemies overseas.
That's simply not true. FISA is the law that says that the NSA or any other government entity cannot spy on a conversation if either side is a "US Person", meaning a person legally in States or a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. So, yes, there is a law that says that if you are (allegedly) conspiring with enemies overseas, they need a warrant to monitor those communications.
Surely not too many, and five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.
Hey I have a suggestion that may help with this problem:
Stop reeling.
No seriously, just stop. You'll be okay. The impact of the blow that initially caused you to reel has long since passed and it's just your own head that is keeping you in this state. So just stop. America has been like a child that was pushed down and just keeps crying and crying and crying. But as soon as you make a funny face at them or otherwise distract them suddenly they're smiling again because the injury stopped hurting a while ago, it's just their brains told them they had been hurt so they should keep crying.
That's us. That's you. You're reeling because your brain says you should be; there's no real reason for it. It's gone on long enough and it's time to get over it. Terrorism happens. It happens to us a lot less than it happens to other people, and while the one major attack we've had was one of the worst, since then our country has been safe and peaceful compared to so many other parts of the world. Britain, Spain, damn, Israel! They've had to deal with this kind of thing regularly and you know what? When something bad happens they are angry and sad and hurt but then they move on. They don't spend eight years reeling from a single blow.
This is why so many democracies supported us when we invaded Afghanistan. Because that was appropriate and they understood our pain. Then they were not so supportive when we invaded Iraq in the name of the War on Terror, because it made no sense. And despite all the disinformation the government was spouting, we both know that the only reason that we, the American people, went along with the invasion of Iraq was because we were still reeling. The people were terrified and angry, and they went along with any outlet for it. We were like a child, lashing out at any enemy even if they weren't the one who hurt us.
So you know the number one thing that we need to do as a country? We need to take a lesson from our British, Spanish, French, Israeli, Japanese, and so on and so on friends and just get over it. Shrug and move on. Terrorism happens, and what the terrorists want is for you to spend eternity terrified that they might do it again. Get it? That's why they're called terrorists?
Frankly we need to be doing less to stop terror. At least in the way we have been. TSA and DHS and all this bullshit isn't helping, it's just reminding us that we were hurt so we should be scared and angry and all that. We both agree that they've done shit as far as effective policy goes, yet here we are still safe and sound and unhurt. The tools we need to fight terror are the ones we've had all along -- give them more resources if you must, but that's the extent of it. They'll never be good enough, so occasionally someone will hurt us. Oh well such is life.
That's why I put "real" in quotes and said that meant due to external factors not the result of hypochondria, as in caused mentally... if that's not precisely the same as psychosomatic, my bad.
There can well be something else that causes symptoms of area residents which is not related to microwave radiation.
Sure, sure. The symptoms could be "real" (as in caused by a real external factor rather than hypochondria), and caused by something in the environment.
This is what the end result of the long-time theories that high tension transmission lines were causing cancer. The EM radiation was harmless as always, but the herbicides they used to clear the ground under the towers was not.
The question in my mind which TFA doesn't answer and could point out whether or not this is the case: When the company announced that they were turning off the tower, did the residents symptoms abate? If so, they're clearly mental in origin. If not, well, maybe they didn't believe the cell company, or maybe there's something in the environment that is actually harming them.
If their symptoms are real, an actual chemical being their cause makes so much more sense that it just boggles me that this isn't the first thing people choose to blame. But no, their insistence on it being due to EM actually gets in the way of the more straightforward investigation.
I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting, Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions, nor is it actually a hindrance in today's or even last year's market.
That is not the theory the FTC is presenting, and the issues that the FTC is investigating don't involve today's or even last year's market.
The theory involves intel's business practices over many years and their efforts to lock out or marginalize them by making agreements with OEMs that said they were required to do exactly that or be at a huge competitive disadvantage vs everyone else who was willing to play ball with Intel. Just as one example.
There are some competitors to Intel (AMD) that don't even OWN fabrication facilities. They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product.
Yes AMD chose to spin off their fabs, because they literally had no other choice. Debt was piling up, and this made securing the incredible amount of funding necessary to build new fabs impossible.
But barring their own spun-off fabs, no they do not have access to "competitive foundries" that can produce their product. Intel was already ahead of AMD's fabs, and AMD's fab is ahead of all the foundries (not counting that AMD uses SOI and all the foundries use bulk), who have neither the capacity nor the time to dedicate to tweaking their processes specifically for AMD's needs so they have a chance of remaining competitive with Intel. AMD is just as dependent on "their own" fabs as ever.
That said, Intel having a fab and AMD selling theirs off (though it's still on AMD's books) is not the FTC's complaint as TFA explains. You rread a lot into the OP that wasn't really being said. They just said anti-trust made sense in chip sales because of the barriers to entry. The actual issue was and is anti-trust, not the barrier to entry itself.
Similarly, competitors such as Freescale etc.
Sorry but LOL.
The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor's poor choices, if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.
That's right, they are chartered to address anti-competitive business practices on the part of the monopolist, which is what they are doing.
Intel has a good point.
Intel is not making the point you think they're making.
Also, they will of course say they have a good point, but it's the exact same points they made to the Japanese and EU trade commissions and during AMD's lawsuit against them, and they didn't fly then. Our FTC seems to move even slower than the others, but part of the reason they're waiting so long and talking about issues from the past is because they have spent a long time investigating and gathering evidence to make their case.
Assuming they have some of the same evidence as the EU that I've seen, Intel doesn't have much of a chance. Though even without that, anyone paying attention through the 90s and early 00s knows what Intel was up to.
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't "simple, well-defined, successful" hallmarks of most hobbies? Work sucks and a career is a minefield of politics never completely under your own control, but a hobby, be it woodworking, car repair, rock climbing, painting, or gaming or whatever are characterized by being more or less completely under my control and completable in a reasonable time frame.
Well-defined, yes. Simple or successful? No, not really. In fact, many hobbies are characterized by a lack of success, like the amateur mechanic who has been working for literally years on an old engine. For some the tinkering itself is the end-goal, but for others they actually want to achieve the well-defined goal of "the engine runs again", but it eludes them, and that's okay. Though if "well-defined" is supposed to mean that the necessary steps are well defined, then even that doesn't necessarily apply.
Rock climbing strikes me as an even better example for contrasting with WoW. In WoW, when you beat a Dungeon or Raid and get the gear from it, then you are well equipped to be successful in the next higher-level one. If you can master the strategies for one raid boss, odds are you already have the mental skills (don't stand in the fire!) to do the next one. In rock climbing, the goals are well defined (reach the top, reach the top without falling, reach the top without falling without ever having seen the route before), but that hardly makes it simple or success likely just because you've done the previous lower-level route. Just because you can easily finish a 5.9 doesn't mean you won't be flailing on the first few 5.10 you come across, and then once you've mastered those you'll take on a 5.11 and realize it's gone to a whole 'nother level and you need a whole new set of skills and strategies. Sometimes some of these routes can become major obstacles that it takes a long time to solve. I spent about two years trying off and on to finish this one 5.11a, it was like a pet project that I kept coming back to. Yeah the goal was well-defined, but how was anything but clear, and success anything but assured.
A person who is attracted to continual and incremental success is not going to be a rock climber for long.
I do like WoW, and there's nothing wrong with that, and I agree that addictive personality types are outliers that come up in a lot of places. But I also recognize that MMOGs are operating on a different level than many other hobbies. The link the GP posted about "performance" vs "mastery" orientations I think spells it out quite well. RPGs give you a never-ending series of essentially inevitable improvements and victories. Not every game or hobby does this.
Unless you are trying to show how effective the counter-terrorism operations have been
Ha ha ha ha! Oh man that's a good one -- "effective"!
Dude, we can't stop Teh Terrorists when their own fathers call us up to narc on them! There's no way you can call our counter-terrorism efforts "effective". Certainly you wouldn't say that about our counter-terrorism prior to 9/11, since it involved violating fewer liberties and liberty = teh terrorist kills you. But yet the death toll for that period even including the failure to stop 9/11 is still incredibly low.
I'm just pointing out what you already know of course, but I can't help it. You should get a new account called AwesomeTrollGuy, because you're really hitting it out of the park today.
So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.
Actually, according to TFA, all these "nonexistent emergencies" and requests for records having nothing to do with actual terrorism overloaded the FBI's communications analysts, which one can reasonably guess hindered their efforts to find actual terrorist threats.
Oh but don't let practical consequences get in the way of that pretty "Liberty or Safety" false dichotomy. I mean it's so nice and obvious if you don't think about it even the tiniest bit.
Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules. I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough. I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.
It's not uncommon in the US either for improperly acquired evidence to be invalidated, and depending on the importance of that evidence for the accused to walk. That's generally been the "teeth" in the 4th Amendment and the rules of evidence. It's why cops always read you your Miranda Rights, because Miranda was a guy who was pretty much as guilty as they come but was tricked into thinking he didn't have any rights and had to confess, so his confession was thrown out and he walked.
The thing is, it's not clear that any of these investigations resulted in actual arrests or charges or anything. It's not clear to what purpose they were getting these records. All I can see from the article is that the agents got these records by invoking "nonexistent emergencies". Well if the emergency was non-existent, it's not hard to imagine that the crime was non-existent too.
The impression I get is basically the FBI going on fishing expeditions. Fishing expeditions that not only came to naught and violated civil liberties, but also overloaded their communications analysts with crap that had nothing to do with actual terrorist threats. So the FBI's counsel can say that they only "technically" violated the law but that the agents were only trying to stop the next terrorist attack, and hey that might even be true, but the practical result was they made it harder to stop the real terrorist threats with their sloppy and illegal work.
Hey, who would have thought that the FBI "technically" violating the law would be a bad thing both to those who value civil liberties, and to "Ends justify the means" types?
Well I don't know about you, but my job consists of more than merely having my posterior in a chair. It's not hard to be too sick to do much productive work, but well enough to play video games. Video games are much easier and there's no consequence for massive failure. Work is more challenging, for me anyway. I can be running a fever, stoned off NyQuil, and sneezing constantly and still play video games between naps. It's hard to get much work done that way.
And trying to do that at work, risking getting everyone around me sick (so they can take it home and get their families sick) is a serious dick move. So don't be an asshole, stay home if you're sick.
Fortunately I can work from home, so when I'm not too sick to get work done (but it would still be a dick move to come into work) I still can.
No, because you're still suggesting to discount malice in the presence of stupidity.
"If it's possible it could be a case of stupidity alone, assume there's no mal intent involved," is a bad assumption in many cases, and thus dumb.
I've never liked that saying because of the implication that malice and stupidity are exclusive.
Dumb and mean are often found together.
It was more like "God, they're machines! That's why I'm leaving you," but that's what she said.
After acquiring the aircraft, the owner could attach nonfunctional mockups for pure show.
That's a good point, but I thought what they were getting at was does the plane merely lack the weapons themselves, as in if you could get your hands on some suitable weapons you'd have an armed fighter. Weapon systems encompasses a lot more than just the weapons or the hardpoints, so it'd be rather moot whether the hardpoints were there or not since that's a lot easier to replace than the weapon electronics which they are surely ripping out.
But if they meant they just wanted to use them to mount replicas, that's a great idea.
Just fyi, I'm only replying to this part because it's the only part of your brilliant post I can take any issue with.
The problem is that the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American Citizens, UNLESS they are monitoring overseas communications. This exception has always been allowed, no warrant necessary. There is no law that states that I have the constitutional right to conspire with enemies overseas.
That's simply not true. FISA is the law that says that the NSA or any other government entity cannot spy on a conversation if either side is a "US Person", meaning a person legally in States or a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. So, yes, there is a law that says that if you are (allegedly) conspiring with enemies overseas, they need a warrant to monitor those communications.
You are correct. I think the the midpoint needs to be in geosync orbit?
Pretty much but technically it's the center of gravity (which is not the center of mass in this case) needs to be in geosynchronous orbit.
Surely not too many, and five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.
Hey I have a suggestion that may help with this problem:
Stop reeling.
No seriously, just stop. You'll be okay. The impact of the blow that initially caused you to reel has long since passed and it's just your own head that is keeping you in this state. So just stop. America has been like a child that was pushed down and just keeps crying and crying and crying. But as soon as you make a funny face at them or otherwise distract them suddenly they're smiling again because the injury stopped hurting a while ago, it's just their brains told them they had been hurt so they should keep crying.
That's us. That's you. You're reeling because your brain says you should be; there's no real reason for it. It's gone on long enough and it's time to get over it. Terrorism happens. It happens to us a lot less than it happens to other people, and while the one major attack we've had was one of the worst, since then our country has been safe and peaceful compared to so many other parts of the world. Britain, Spain, damn, Israel! They've had to deal with this kind of thing regularly and you know what? When something bad happens they are angry and sad and hurt but then they move on. They don't spend eight years reeling from a single blow.
This is why so many democracies supported us when we invaded Afghanistan. Because that was appropriate and they understood our pain. Then they were not so supportive when we invaded Iraq in the name of the War on Terror, because it made no sense. And despite all the disinformation the government was spouting, we both know that the only reason that we, the American people, went along with the invasion of Iraq was because we were still reeling. The people were terrified and angry, and they went along with any outlet for it. We were like a child, lashing out at any enemy even if they weren't the one who hurt us.
So you know the number one thing that we need to do as a country? We need to take a lesson from our British, Spanish, French, Israeli, Japanese, and so on and so on friends and just get over it. Shrug and move on. Terrorism happens, and what the terrorists want is for you to spend eternity terrified that they might do it again. Get it? That's why they're called terrorists?
Frankly we need to be doing less to stop terror. At least in the way we have been. TSA and DHS and all this bullshit isn't helping, it's just reminding us that we were hurt so we should be scared and angry and all that. We both agree that they've done shit as far as effective policy goes, yet here we are still safe and sound and unhurt. The tools we need to fight terror are the ones we've had all along -- give them more resources if you must, but that's the extent of it. They'll never be good enough, so occasionally someone will hurt us. Oh well such is life.
It's just that people won't be people if they try.
Sing it with me now!
People are people
So how can it be
That you and I accelerate
So awfully?
Ben & Jerry's ICBMs: It's a delicious apocalypse!
John Hunter: Note to self: Try to avoid working with Saddam Hussein.
Exactly what a terrorist would say!
Get 'im!
Dare I ask what happens at the top of the hour?
Universe Man. Universe Man.
Size of the entire universe, man.
Usually kind to smaller men
Universe Man
He's got a watch with a minute hand
Millennium hand and an eon hand
And when they meet it's a happy land
Powerful man, Universe Man
I'm never going to look at that song the same way again.
No no, it's coming true. It's just... you aren't Dr. Manhatten. You're Mothman. Now please take your meds, Mr. Lewis.
Yes it was necessary to clue Mr. AC in that they seem to have completely missed the point, and yes I enjoy being a dick to the deliberately ignorant.
That's why I put "real" in quotes and said that meant due to external factors not the result of hypochondria, as in caused mentally... if that's not precisely the same as psychosomatic, my bad.
Heh. Instead of *tick tock*, this clock goes *fap fap*.
That's not a mistake Intel should have to pay for.
And they're not paying for anything having to do with AMD's actions, they're paying for their own business practices. Try to keep up please?
There can well be something else that causes symptoms of area residents which is not related to microwave radiation.
Sure, sure. The symptoms could be "real" (as in caused by a real external factor rather than hypochondria), and caused by something in the environment.
This is what the end result of the long-time theories that high tension transmission lines were causing cancer. The EM radiation was harmless as always, but the herbicides they used to clear the ground under the towers was not.
The question in my mind which TFA doesn't answer and could point out whether or not this is the case: When the company announced that they were turning off the tower, did the residents symptoms abate? If so, they're clearly mental in origin. If not, well, maybe they didn't believe the cell company, or maybe there's something in the environment that is actually harming them.
If their symptoms are real, an actual chemical being their cause makes so much more sense that it just boggles me that this isn't the first thing people choose to blame. But no, their insistence on it being due to EM actually gets in the way of the more straightforward investigation.
The fact that the case still isn't dismissed apparently means the lobby of electrosensitives is rather strong there :(
Well it was the lawyer who said that the case would continue "on different grounds", not the court.
What that tells me is that this lawyer is not being paid on a contingency basis. :)
I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting, Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions, nor is it actually a hindrance in today's or even last year's market.
That is not the theory the FTC is presenting, and the issues that the FTC is investigating don't involve today's or even last year's market.
The theory involves intel's business practices over many years and their efforts to lock out or marginalize them by making agreements with OEMs that said they were required to do exactly that or be at a huge competitive disadvantage vs everyone else who was willing to play ball with Intel. Just as one example.
There are some competitors to Intel (AMD) that don't even OWN fabrication facilities. They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product.
Yes AMD chose to spin off their fabs, because they literally had no other choice. Debt was piling up, and this made securing the incredible amount of funding necessary to build new fabs impossible.
But barring their own spun-off fabs, no they do not have access to "competitive foundries" that can produce their product. Intel was already ahead of AMD's fabs, and AMD's fab is ahead of all the foundries (not counting that AMD uses SOI and all the foundries use bulk), who have neither the capacity nor the time to dedicate to tweaking their processes specifically for AMD's needs so they have a chance of remaining competitive with Intel. AMD is just as dependent on "their own" fabs as ever.
That said, Intel having a fab and AMD selling theirs off (though it's still on AMD's books) is not the FTC's complaint as TFA explains. You rread a lot into the OP that wasn't really being said. They just said anti-trust made sense in chip sales because of the barriers to entry. The actual issue was and is anti-trust, not the barrier to entry itself.
Similarly, competitors such as Freescale etc.
Sorry but LOL.
The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor's poor choices, if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.
That's right, they are chartered to address anti-competitive business practices on the part of the monopolist, which is what they are doing.
Intel has a good point.
Intel is not making the point you think they're making.
Also, they will of course say they have a good point, but it's the exact same points they made to the Japanese and EU trade commissions and during AMD's lawsuit against them, and they didn't fly then. Our FTC seems to move even slower than the others, but part of the reason they're waiting so long and talking about issues from the past is because they have spent a long time investigating and gathering evidence to make their case.
Assuming they have some of the same evidence as the EU that I've seen, Intel doesn't have much of a chance. Though even without that, anyone paying attention through the 90s and early 00s knows what Intel was up to.