I like to stargaze from my driveway (back yard has giant oaks), and I'm dealing with not just the glow from the city, but also all the halogen or flourescent porch lights on my street, plus whatever the street lights are (they aren't LED, but aren't orange like sodium lights).
I had a marked improvement in my views of nebula when I picked up a UHC filter. Before that it was pretty pointless looking at things that weren't clusters, or planets. Now the Ring looks nearly as good as it would if I drove an hour out of the city. I would think that any narrow-pass filter would serve to cut out light pollution very well.
What kind of broad-pass filters (not counting the anti-sodium light pollution filter) are you using and for what kind of objects?
This summer, go out camping. And by camping, I don't mean parking a motorhome next to an electrical hookup. I mean the "What do you mean you forgot the coffee? It's a four hour canoe trip and three portages back to the car, you numbskull!" kind of camping.
Well where am I going to plug in the tracking motor for my C11 telescope, then?
Note that even if the faster-than-light neutrino result from CERN/Gran Sasso is correct, it doesn't necessarily conflict with SR. SR doesn't forbid FTL. It only forbids an object from being accelerated from a speed less than c to a speed greater than c.
That's just not true. SR forbids anything, even information, from travelling FTL because as a consequence of time dilation in non-FTL reference frames if you could travel or communicate FTL then you could create closed causal loops. Causality is one of the basic assumptions of SR along with relativity and constancy of the speed of light.
Objects with mass can't be accelerated to the speed of light for a different reason -- because it would require infinite energy. So accelerating pastc is obviously not possible (and such an object would have energy that is a complex number, whatever that would mean).
But FTL is in fact forbidden by SR. The neutrino experiments have serious ramifications for SR, and the experimenters know it.
If you think most large American corporations are run by honest people who actually value their employees and wouldn't even think of defrauding them to improve their bottom line (and executive compensation) if they could get away with it cleanly, then you're an idiot.
If someone had asked me "Hey Chris, if you could put words in Grishnakh's mouth, what would you have them say in order to perfectly exemplify your point?" I would have replied with something almost exactly like what you just wrote. It's uncanny.
Even though I flat out told you it was not the case, you still took my statement that most companies are not equally abusive to their employees as this to mean that they are wonderful places that love and support their employees without fail.
You've literally declared your inability to distinguish between anyone who isn't completely trustworthy, unable to even think of defrauding their employees. Well, guess what? In reality, nobody is completely trustworthy, and there are many degrees of untrustworthiness. There are many degrees of contempt for employees. By thinking only in absolutes, you've failed to notice when something is the same in kind but exceptional in degree. This is catastrophic to problem solving, which in the real world requires targeted efforts and nuanced understanding.
Distinguishing: It matters. It seems to be an increasingly lost skill. I guess because "A is not X and B is not X therefore A = B" is nice and easy "logic". But I think it is ruining our discourse and ability to realistically address our problems in this country.
1) Would you sign an NDA preventing you from badmouthing a company, in return for universal health care from that company?
Um what does "universal health care" mean in the context of an individual signing an NDA? Either universal healthcare is provided or it isn't.... Are you saying the law the government passed to create universal healthcare also prohibits badmouthing the healthcare provider? That law would certainly be unconstitutional. But let's put that aside.
No, I wouldn't sign and nobody else should either, because just like a software company whose EULA says you can't benchmark their product, or review screenings of a movie that require you to refrain from publishing your review until after opening weekend, such a requirement can mean only one thing:
The quality of health care is utter shit, you will want to badmouth the company, they're as likely to make your cancer worse as they are to cure it, and they know it too which is why they want to preemptively gag you. If you could speak freely, they might have to mend their ways and they definitely don't want to do that. Much easier to muzzle people.
Yeah, your speedo would be inaccurate by xx%, but cruise control would still work and you could easily figure out where the new 60MPH was by timing mile markers.
Those radar displays they put by the road sometimes would be a great help for this. It's how I realized that my speedometer was reading high by several mph at ~50. No tire size changes; as I understand it they err on the side of overstating your speed.
Hey, thanks for posting a direct link so that anyone can see the complete lack of requirement for lowering lending standards.
I'm guessing you wouldn't have posted that link if you hadn't already swallowed the lie that "reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the communities" is equivalent to "making unreasonably risky loans", and were thus happy to regurgitate it.
The problem the CRA was addressing was red-lining -- the automatic exclusion from loan qualification of applicants based not on their actual qualifications, but on their residence in a low-income neighborhood.
I welcome you to find in that link which includes legislative changes to the act the place where banks were required to make risky loans, or admit that it is in fact you that are the liar.
Or I guess you could try arguing that loaning to someone in a red-lined area is inherently an unreasonable risk and that you can say this without knowing anything else about the specific applicant in question. Cus that will really prove your point.
Unless this material has some new property, wouldn't it also radiate better than any other material?
It probably -- but not necessarily -- has high emissivity to match its high absorbency. It almost certainly does not have low emissivity.
Which means when used in far-infrared astronomical observations, the telescope would still have to be cooled to extremely low temperatures to minimize the emissions from the surface. It would still have the advantage of not reflecting infrared from other sources into the telescope.
And yeah, it'd be useless for infrared cloaking, where the entire problem is emitted light from your heat. If you could cool yourself off to prevent this, then you wouldn't need this coating.
FTFS: it's not the restaurants that are reporting this, it's a Government Agency
Yes the issue of a broad theft problem is being reported by a GA, and the GA is talking about taking action, but the GA wouldn't know about the problem unless it was reported by the independent restaurants first.
The implication that the restaurants don't care, only the government and its oil lobbyists care, is completely unfounded.
Oh, and also wrong according to TFA:
NPR blogger Nancy Shute reports on how restaurants and recyclers are now putting barrels of so-called yellow grease under lock and key because, as the National Renderers Association told her, it has become "the new copper."
I guess you were under the impression that only the government and the thieves, not the restaurants, knew that IKG could be valuable?
You also had a law passed in the Carter years to make it easier for people who couldn't (and as we can now see, shouldn't) have been granted a mortgage provided one. This law got itself teeth during the Clinton years to aggressively push these high risk mortgages out there, or the banks would suffer fines. All of this backed up by federally created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who then started bundling these high risk loans with AAA credit loans. All the while, anything that had once been considered wise lending practices were thrown out the window.
This is horseshit. This is the "blame the poor minorities and the liberals who thought they should be subject to the same standards as everyone else" canard that was trotted out after the collapse to try to divert blame away from the deregulation that is the real obvious cause -- point of fact, even if this bull excrement explanation held any water, had the old rules about the types of securities banks could invest in and the limits to their ability to leverage were in place, the collapse wouldn't have happened.
The law never required banks to make risky loans. It only required them to not refuse loans based solely on where someone lived, or to use a higher standard to secure the loan than they would for someone who lived somewhere else.
My bank was subject to the same law, and while so much of the financial sector was collapsing it was fine, because it didn't make risky loans, and it didn't invest in CDOs because the board was smart enough to realize what a crock of shit their ratings were.
The people who got mortgages but shouldn't weren't just the poor, but the middle class getting mortgages far beyond what they could afford. Not every middle class family should buy a McMansion, but that's not what the loan officers were saying. They knew the loan was risky (or didn't know but didn't care), but they also knew they could turn right around and sell the loan to someone who would package it up with a bunch of others, slap a completely fanciful risk rating on it, and then sell it again to some sap, aka Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Citibank, and all the others who had to be bailed out.
The only policies that were pushed that caused this disaster are the deregulation The-Free-Market-Knows-Best policies that the banks themselves were pushing for.
Oh and as far as taking -- the government may be the only one authorized to take in the form of taxes, but the government is only taking a percentage of earnings. When the bankers, in their irresponsible greed, trashed the economy and cost millions their jobs, so they had no earnings. Despite not having the authority, the banks took more than the government did.
The protesters know who is to blame. The bankers are not middlemen in this mess.
Hey that's good to hear. Do you also have a plugin for plugging your plugin? And if you used the plugin-plugging plugin to plug your plugin-plugger, would the internet stack overflow?:)
I kinda like what the middle man has done, letting me go from an install CD to a working -- like not just boots but nearly all hardware functioning as well -- Debian-based linux installation.
The main thing I love Debian for is apt, and that's still there after installation is done.
'Course, much love for Debian anyway. I used it alone for years, and may try it again since my desktop continues to not be the tablet Unity seems to have been designed for.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Woops, thanks.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
I have a hard time believing that just because the SU-27 is a 4th generation, non-stealth fighter, a rough equivalent to the F-15. And both F-22 and F-35 have a ridiculously high kill ratio against our own 4th generation fighters in war games. I could believe the Sukov was better than other 4th generation fighters but...
Oh, I see. It was a computer simulation. And it was SU-35 vs F-35, with no F-22s involved. And there's a political battle going on in the background over whether or not the F-35 is sufficient. Yeah.
Maybe it's like the other Gee-we-really-need-the-F-22 computer-simulated "war game" cooked up by a think tank I read about, where they had woefully underestimated the F-35's flight performance. They'd made it seem as if an F-16 would fly circles around it and only the new technologies could hope to make a difference. Whereas the actual chief test pilot for the F-35s, who had also flown F-22s and F-16s, said the F-35 had amazing flight characteristics -- equal to the F-16 in most respects, slightly behind in some and ahead in others. Unlike the F-16, it kept those characteristics with a combat loadout.
Your pretty accurate reference to Hector's role aside, that description of events sounds suspect. AMD bought ATI in 2006, when the housing bubble hadn't even burst yet and the financial crisis was way over the horizon. The lack of value of the ATI purchase was factored into the AMD share price long before the market crash -- stock being the main thing they bought ATI with, not cash. There's another thing, too.
You don't pay for a fab with cash, either; they're just too expensive to build and update. It's about financing and investors, and they want to see that money invested in the fab specifically is going to pay off. ATI only affected that to the extent that the promise of Fusion wasn't enough to convince investors, but that's only a minor factor compared to the fact that the previous investment in fabs wasn't paying off for the CPU business. If AMD's market share had grown as it would have been expected to in the absence of Intel manipulation, then the presence or absence of ATI and Fusion wouldn't have mattered.
Which is why AMD didn't sell the fab for cash since cash wasn't the problem. They spun it off because they couldn't get investment in the new fab tech that they absolutely need as long as said fabs were tied to making only AMD products. As a foundry, though, the technology had value. At least to those in Abu Dhabi. The point was someone was investing in the fabs again.
AMD did start building fabs when the Athlon64 and Opteron were kicking ass all over, and when their projections of market share showed that they would be fab limited -- which for a while, they were.
The problem is that when they opened up the flood gates on their production capacity, the market share didn't follow. It bumped slightly, but not nearly enough to justify the massive investment in the fabs, wrecking their financials and ultimately forcing them to spin off the fabs as Global Foundries. This is due to the backroom deals Intel had with OEMs limiting the amount of AMD parts they could sell.
This is the essence of AMD's lawsuit against Intel and the anti-trust rulings by Japan, North Korea, and the EU.
In my experience image sells more often than brand. Particularly image establishes brand, for what it's worth.
Yes, but the people doing that for AMD haven't exactly been doing a stellar job over the years... Their marketing messages have been constantly changing, and each version was a muddled mess.
Not saying they deserved to be sacked or anything... Just, marketing is not one of AMDs strengths and I don't think this will cost them as much as one might think.
These look like the sort of cuts of a company which may be in particular stress. Not encouraging.
I'm encouraged that they cut heavy on marketing and less on R&D, as opposed to the opposite. That'd imply they aren't planning on being competitive, ever, and just want to suck as much money out of existing products as possible before the end. Reducing the marketing but keeping as much R&D as possible implies they want to be around for the long haul.
Of course you do need both R&D and marketing, but if you gotta cut (and with their current revenue and cost structure, I can't say they don't) then this seems like the smarter way to me.
I'm even more encouraged that the riffs supposedly hit the executives disproportionately as well. AMD has a kinda top-heavy structure and I'm sure that there's some chaff that can be cleared out, and with better buck-for-bang.
Slashdot Mirror
I like to stargaze from my driveway (back yard has giant oaks), and I'm dealing with not just the glow from the city, but also all the halogen or flourescent porch lights on my street, plus whatever the street lights are (they aren't LED, but aren't orange like sodium lights).
I had a marked improvement in my views of nebula when I picked up a UHC filter. Before that it was pretty pointless looking at things that weren't clusters, or planets. Now the Ring looks nearly as good as it would if I drove an hour out of the city. I would think that any narrow-pass filter would serve to cut out light pollution very well.
What kind of broad-pass filters (not counting the anti-sodium light pollution filter) are you using and for what kind of objects?
This summer, go out camping. And by camping, I don't mean parking a motorhome next to an electrical hookup. I mean the "What do you mean you forgot the coffee? It's a four hour canoe trip and three portages back to the car, you numbskull!" kind of camping.
Well where am I going to plug in the tracking motor for my C11 telescope, then?
Note that even if the faster-than-light neutrino result from CERN/Gran Sasso is correct, it doesn't necessarily conflict with SR. SR doesn't forbid FTL. It only forbids an object from being accelerated from a speed less than c to a speed greater than c.
That's just not true. SR forbids anything, even information, from travelling FTL because as a consequence of time dilation in non-FTL reference frames if you could travel or communicate FTL then you could create closed causal loops. Causality is one of the basic assumptions of SR along with relativity and constancy of the speed of light.
Objects with mass can't be accelerated to the speed of light for a different reason -- because it would require infinite energy. So accelerating past c is obviously not possible (and such an object would have energy that is a complex number, whatever that would mean).
But FTL is in fact forbidden by SR. The neutrino experiments have serious ramifications for SR, and the experimenters know it.
Dude - Grishnakh's an orc. They're not really known for their subtleties in thought.
Somewhere in Azeroth, Thrall is facepalming.
If you think most large American corporations are run by honest people who actually value their employees and wouldn't even think of defrauding them to improve their bottom line (and executive compensation) if they could get away with it cleanly, then you're an idiot.
If someone had asked me "Hey Chris, if you could put words in Grishnakh's mouth, what would you have them say in order to perfectly exemplify your point?" I would have replied with something almost exactly like what you just wrote. It's uncanny.
Even though I flat out told you it was not the case, you still took my statement that most companies are not equally abusive to their employees as this to mean that they are wonderful places that love and support their employees without fail.
You've literally declared your inability to distinguish between anyone who isn't completely trustworthy, unable to even think of defrauding their employees. Well, guess what? In reality, nobody is completely trustworthy, and there are many degrees of untrustworthiness. There are many degrees of contempt for employees. By thinking only in absolutes, you've failed to notice when something is the same in kind but exceptional in degree. This is catastrophic to problem solving, which in the real world requires targeted efforts and nuanced understanding.
Distinguishing: It matters. It seems to be an increasingly lost skill. I guess because "A is not X and B is not X therefore A = B" is nice and easy "logic". But I think it is ruining our discourse and ability to realistically address our problems in this country.
Then you're blind.
And if you interpret this as a defense or implicit approval of the behavior of most large American corporations, then you're deaf.
Distinguishing: A lost art of great value.
1) Would you sign an NDA preventing you from badmouthing a company, in return for universal health care from that company?
Um what does "universal health care" mean in the context of an individual signing an NDA? Either universal healthcare is provided or it isn't.... Are you saying the law the government passed to create universal healthcare also prohibits badmouthing the healthcare provider? That law would certainly be unconstitutional. But let's put that aside.
No, I wouldn't sign and nobody else should either, because just like a software company whose EULA says you can't benchmark their product, or review screenings of a movie that require you to refrain from publishing your review until after opening weekend, such a requirement can mean only one thing:
The quality of health care is utter shit, you will want to badmouth the company, they're as likely to make your cancer worse as they are to cure it, and they know it too which is why they want to preemptively gag you. If you could speak freely, they might have to mend their ways and they definitely don't want to do that. Much easier to muzzle people.
Gee, kinda like the Chinese government.
What are you talking about? Israel doesn't have any nucl-ha ha ha! Oh, sorry, I couldn't quite say it with a straight face.
Yeah, your speedo would be inaccurate by xx%, but cruise control would still work and you could easily figure out where the new 60MPH was by timing mile markers.
Those radar displays they put by the road sometimes would be a great help for this. It's how I realized that my speedometer was reading high by several mph at ~50. No tire size changes; as I understand it they err on the side of overstating your speed.
Hey, thanks for posting a direct link so that anyone can see the complete lack of requirement for lowering lending standards.
I'm guessing you wouldn't have posted that link if you hadn't already swallowed the lie that "reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the communities" is equivalent to "making unreasonably risky loans", and were thus happy to regurgitate it.
The problem the CRA was addressing was red-lining -- the automatic exclusion from loan qualification of applicants based not on their actual qualifications, but on their residence in a low-income neighborhood.
I welcome you to find in that link which includes legislative changes to the act the place where banks were required to make risky loans, or admit that it is in fact you that are the liar.
Or I guess you could try arguing that loaning to someone in a red-lined area is inherently an unreasonable risk and that you can say this without knowing anything else about the specific applicant in question. Cus that will really prove your point.
It probably -- but not necessarily -- has high emissivity to match its high absorbency
* At the frequencies in question.
Since when does the congress 'allow' things that are automatically reserved to the states?
It's a different sense of the word "allow".
They aren't giving the states permission to levy sales taxes.
They're giving them the ability to.
Unless this material has some new property, wouldn't it also radiate better than any other material?
It probably -- but not necessarily -- has high emissivity to match its high absorbency. It almost certainly does not have low emissivity.
Which means when used in far-infrared astronomical observations, the telescope would still have to be cooled to extremely low temperatures to minimize the emissions from the surface. It would still have the advantage of not reflecting infrared from other sources into the telescope.
And yeah, it'd be useless for infrared cloaking, where the entire problem is emitted light from your heat. If you could cool yourself off to prevent this, then you wouldn't need this coating.
FTFS: it's not the restaurants that are reporting this, it's a Government Agency
Yes the issue of a broad theft problem is being reported by a GA, and the GA is talking about taking action, but the GA wouldn't know about the problem unless it was reported by the independent restaurants first.
The implication that the restaurants don't care, only the government and its oil lobbyists care, is completely unfounded.
Oh, and also wrong according to TFA:
NPR blogger Nancy Shute reports on how restaurants and recyclers are now putting barrels of so-called yellow grease under lock and key because, as the National Renderers Association told her, it has become "the new copper."
I guess you were under the impression that only the government and the thieves, not the restaurants, knew that IKG could be valuable?
You also had a law passed in the Carter years to make it easier for people who couldn't (and as we can now see, shouldn't) have been granted a mortgage provided one. This law got itself teeth during the Clinton years to aggressively push these high risk mortgages out there, or the banks would suffer fines. All of this backed up by federally created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who then started bundling these high risk loans with AAA credit loans. All the while, anything that had once been considered wise lending practices were thrown out the window.
This is horseshit. This is the "blame the poor minorities and the liberals who thought they should be subject to the same standards as everyone else" canard that was trotted out after the collapse to try to divert blame away from the deregulation that is the real obvious cause -- point of fact, even if this bull excrement explanation held any water, had the old rules about the types of securities banks could invest in and the limits to their ability to leverage were in place, the collapse wouldn't have happened.
The law never required banks to make risky loans. It only required them to not refuse loans based solely on where someone lived, or to use a higher standard to secure the loan than they would for someone who lived somewhere else.
My bank was subject to the same law, and while so much of the financial sector was collapsing it was fine, because it didn't make risky loans, and it didn't invest in CDOs because the board was smart enough to realize what a crock of shit their ratings were.
The people who got mortgages but shouldn't weren't just the poor, but the middle class getting mortgages far beyond what they could afford. Not every middle class family should buy a McMansion, but that's not what the loan officers were saying. They knew the loan was risky (or didn't know but didn't care), but they also knew they could turn right around and sell the loan to someone who would package it up with a bunch of others, slap a completely fanciful risk rating on it, and then sell it again to some sap, aka Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Citibank, and all the others who had to be bailed out.
The only policies that were pushed that caused this disaster are the deregulation The-Free-Market-Knows-Best policies that the banks themselves were pushing for.
Oh and as far as taking -- the government may be the only one authorized to take in the form of taxes, but the government is only taking a percentage of earnings. When the bankers, in their irresponsible greed, trashed the economy and cost millions their jobs, so they had no earnings. Despite not having the authority, the banks took more than the government did.
The protesters know who is to blame. The bankers are not middlemen in this mess.
Hey that's good to hear. Do you also have a plugin for plugging your plugin? And if you used the plugin-plugging plugin to plug your plugin-plugger, would the internet stack overflow? :)
I kinda like what the middle man has done, letting me go from an install CD to a working -- like not just boots but nearly all hardware functioning as well -- Debian-based linux installation.
The main thing I love Debian for is apt, and that's still there after installation is done.
'Course, much love for Debian anyway. I used it alone for years, and may try it again since my desktop continues to not be the tablet Unity seems to have been designed for.
Woops, thanks.
I have a hard time believing that just because the SU-27 is a 4th generation, non-stealth fighter, a rough equivalent to the F-15. And both F-22 and F-35 have a ridiculously high kill ratio against our own 4th generation fighters in war games. I could believe the Sukov was better than other 4th generation fighters but...
Oh, I see. It was a computer simulation. And it was SU-35 vs F-35, with no F-22s involved. And there's a political battle going on in the background over whether or not the F-35 is sufficient. Yeah.
Maybe it's like the other Gee-we-really-need-the-F-22 computer-simulated "war game" cooked up by a think tank I read about, where they had woefully underestimated the F-35's flight performance. They'd made it seem as if an F-16 would fly circles around it and only the new technologies could hope to make a difference. Whereas the actual chief test pilot for the F-35s, who had also flown F-22s and F-16s, said the F-35 had amazing flight characteristics -- equal to the F-16 in most respects, slightly behind in some and ahead in others. Unlike the F-16, it kept those characteristics with a combat loadout.
Your pretty accurate reference to Hector's role aside, that description of events sounds suspect. AMD bought ATI in 2006, when the housing bubble hadn't even burst yet and the financial crisis was way over the horizon. The lack of value of the ATI purchase was factored into the AMD share price long before the market crash -- stock being the main thing they bought ATI with, not cash. There's another thing, too.
You don't pay for a fab with cash, either; they're just too expensive to build and update. It's about financing and investors, and they want to see that money invested in the fab specifically is going to pay off. ATI only affected that to the extent that the promise of Fusion wasn't enough to convince investors, but that's only a minor factor compared to the fact that the previous investment in fabs wasn't paying off for the CPU business. If AMD's market share had grown as it would have been expected to in the absence of Intel manipulation, then the presence or absence of ATI and Fusion wouldn't have mattered.
Which is why AMD didn't sell the fab for cash since cash wasn't the problem. They spun it off because they couldn't get investment in the new fab tech that they absolutely need as long as said fabs were tied to making only AMD products. As a foundry, though, the technology had value. At least to those in Abu Dhabi. The point was someone was investing in the fabs again.
That's an interesting point. Thanks.
I LOLed IRL. :)
Yeah, maybe you should read the post before commenting. In particular:
Never mind it makes jobs and science byproducts that benefits everyday life.
AMD did start building fabs when the Athlon64 and Opteron were kicking ass all over, and when their projections of market share showed that they would be fab limited -- which for a while, they were.
The problem is that when they opened up the flood gates on their production capacity, the market share didn't follow. It bumped slightly, but not nearly enough to justify the massive investment in the fabs, wrecking their financials and ultimately forcing them to spin off the fabs as Global Foundries. This is due to the backroom deals Intel had with OEMs limiting the amount of AMD parts they could sell.
This is the essence of AMD's lawsuit against Intel and the anti-trust rulings by Japan, North Korea, and the EU.
In my experience image sells more often than brand. Particularly image establishes brand, for what it's worth.
Yes, but the people doing that for AMD haven't exactly been doing a stellar job over the years... Their marketing messages have been constantly changing, and each version was a muddled mess.
Not saying they deserved to be sacked or anything... Just, marketing is not one of AMDs strengths and I don't think this will cost them as much as one might think.
These look like the sort of cuts of a company which may be in particular stress. Not encouraging.
I'm encouraged that they cut heavy on marketing and less on R&D, as opposed to the opposite. That'd imply they aren't planning on being competitive, ever, and just want to suck as much money out of existing products as possible before the end. Reducing the marketing but keeping as much R&D as possible implies they want to be around for the long haul.
Of course you do need both R&D and marketing, but if you gotta cut (and with their current revenue and cost structure, I can't say they don't) then this seems like the smarter way to me.
I'm even more encouraged that the riffs supposedly hit the executives disproportionately as well. AMD has a kinda top-heavy structure and I'm sure that there's some chaff that can be cleared out, and with better buck-for-bang.