Intel have publically stated that they will not be shipping 45nm chips until 2008.
Nah. Here's what Intel's 45nm page says: This important milestone demonstrates that we are on track for 2007 to manufacture chips on 300mm wafers using the new 45nm (P1266) process, in accordance with Moore's Law.
Intel shipped a few 65nm processors in 2005, but didn't really get started until 2006, and full conversion might not have happened yet, although all the important plants should have migrated by now.
Even if true, AMD has yet to ship a SINGLE 65nm processor. By this measure alone, I'd say the claim that they are a year behind is quite adequete. But by the speed at which AMD is producing fab plants, I'd argue that they are or soon will be an entire chip generation behind.
AMD have been behind on the process node, but that's not the only issue when it comes to making chips, although it is the most major. SS + SOI are other technologies that AMD is far ahead of Intel on, and they help reduce power significantly - hence AMD's low power 90nm processors compared to Intel's 90nm, and even Intel's 65nm P4s, and AMD aren't doing too badly in terms of performance/Watt right now either.
Traditionally Intel has won the absolute performance title. As you said yourself it is the biggest factor when it comes to performance/Watt statistics. If been following any of the Core 2 Duo reviews, Intel is now dominating in that arena too.
is to reduce the distance between their transistors from 90nm to 65. Intel started shipping their 65nm chips nearly a year ago (OCT 2005), while AMD has yet to ship any. AMD isn't expected to be fully converted to the 65nm process until mid-2007, and by then Intel is expected to start shipping their 45nm chips. AMD is playing catch-up these days and it's hurting them bad.
With increasing manning shortages and prolonged deployments, many service members find themselves working 60 hours a week at home and 72 hours deployed. It's the new normal.
I don't think anyone here has really captured the message Colbert was really trying to convey. Wikiality is not about the tyranny of the majority, or the "undeserving" importance that some wiki entries get, but that truth is something that is decidable, that it isn't immutatable. The greatest demonstration of this effect is in wikipedia, where changing what is truth is just one edit away. He goes on to satirically say that all truths should be mutuable like this. With millions still believing the government's lies that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, I think we can all agree that wikiality has become the new reality.
Let's not play your game. Your commentary is so one-sided, lacking both accuracy and context, that it's laughable.
Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel. (Ignore this, lameness filter bypass)
Yeah, except for that one nation called Pakistan. Oh and Iran in 10 years if we let them.
Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
Except for that country called Iran. Yeah, they signed it, but they certainly haven't lived up to the treaty. Not to mention that Syria has not signed the CWC or BTWC.
You know I was intending of going line by line on your commentary, but it's obvious from your first two "points" that you did not intend to add a well-researched comment to this discussion and I know better ways of spending a Sunday afternoon than exposing trolls.
I think it was about how they found it fun. The mentality.
It makes no difference to a dead insurgent, but it do make a difference in the perception of the US army.
And what would you have them be? Terrified? Emotionless?
In case you haven't noticed, these guys are at war. Which means they are under a great deal of stress. Probably a greater deal of stress than you or I will ever come to know. Probably a greater adreniline rush than you or I will ever come to know. Their attitudes which you found so crude are their way of dealing with the stress and associated side effects. It's war. I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
It's unfortunate that you've allowed your perception of our military to be shaped by some misunderstanding. Many times you don't see insurgents firing back because they generally don't have any idea where the fire is coming from, especially if this is happening at night. It does not mean however, that aerial gunners just go roaming from village to village shooting random people. I assure you our gunners are very disciplined and follow strict ROE. Most of the time those flying in to deliver the Close Air Support (CAS) are radioed in by a platoon or company that's pinned in some position on the ground and require these A-10s or AC-130s to come in and light the bad guys up.
This may be hard for you to accept, but in war people die. Their language may be crude, but either way I'm sure it makes no difference to the dead insurgent and all the difference in the world to our guys who live to fight another day.
I sympathize with your skepticism of this project's value. But I disagree with attitude of discounting the threat. For starters there have been several instinces throughout history where terrorists have used missiles to shoot down passenger aircraft. But more to the point, if insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan can use RPGs or MANPADs to bring down military aircraft, I think it's safe to say the same tools are just as a capable of bringing down a commercial. In fact, given that commercial airlines are relatively unmanueverable as well as the fact that they don't carry any countermeasures, you have to assume increased plausability.
More likely: I'll take 50,000 dumb-mines and 25,000 smart-mines, and use them where they make sense. Same reason why we still have dumb bombs and precision guided munitions.
Premise 1: Landmines are effective.
Premise 2: Killing POWs are effective.
Premise 3: Killing POWs is barbaric.
Conclusion: Landmines are barbaric.
Is that argument supposed to convince me that landmines are barbaric? Because it's not really an argument when your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises but from an empty assertion. Unless you expected me to take the following argument seriously.
Premise 1: Giraffes are tall.
Premise 2: Bronchosauruses are tall.
Premise 3: Bronochosauruses are extinct.
Conclusion: Giraffes are extinct.
There is a significant difference between landmines and killing POWs. We gain an incredible tactical advantage which has the potential to be convereted to a strategic win with landmines. Even if you are incredibly outmatched, landmines can be used to slow an enemy's advancement and allow you to retreat or even pin an otherwise overpowering enemy to a certain location which can be eliminated later with airstrikes. Yes there is a collateral damage risk with using landmines but those risks can be mitigated with careful emplacement and techonology that disables the mines by setting their estimated period of usefulness. Now compare this to killing POWs. What significant advantage do we gain by killing POWs? Yes, providing for POWs would free up some soliders, but not much. You don't need a large cadre of soldiers to watch over them (see Guantomino Bay). However, killing POWs so that you can free up some soldiers does come at a cost and a very expensive one at that. The main reason we don't kill POWs is not because it's barbaric, but because we wouldn't want our soliders killed if the roles were reveresed.
Or here's my argument again in sentence form:
Premise 1: Landmines are net benefits effective.
Premise 2: Killing POWs are not net benefits effective.
Conclusion: Landmines can be justifiably be used for warfare.
Apple has a website dedicated to advertising the games that are available for the Mac. A cursory glance of the titles gives the impression that Apple actually has a large videogame library. However upon a closer scrutinization the games are a generation or two behind a series that is currently available to the PC. For example, Apple has Battlefield 1942, but they don't have Battlefield 2. Apple has Civilization III but they don't have Civilization IV. Apple has Ghost Recon but not Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. If Apple really wants to win over the gamer market they are going to have to end the typical 6-12 month delay that a game experiences before being ported to a Mac, if it is ported at all. Otherwise the gamers demographic will continue to be dominated by Microsoft.
Iran could just BUY enriched uranium off the world market cheaply and controversey free, instead of spending billions on making their own enrichment facilities.
Wow you really no nothing about nuclear sales do you?
The 'insurgents' have managed to keep American troops on the ground in Iraq long enough the people are starting to doubt that they should be there. Iraq will be the downfall of Bush and that will be the insurgents victory.
What people? The Iraqi people think we should be there. I think they know first hand how wear their government currently is. The American people are doubting the nessecity of our prescence but the president isn't wavering. I think if we are having this same discussion come 2008 elections then we could say things are looking a lot dimmer for a US victory in Iraq, but until then there is still hope.
If I was CinC I would rather have not fought this war, but we are fighting it. So I would ask you, in our present circumstances, what would you change to achieve our goal in a cheaper manner?
After Palestine, I don't imagine turning Iraq into a democracy is as clear-cut an objective as it may have seemed at one time.
Turning Iraq into a democracy I think wasn't so hard. The hard part comes with beefing Iraq up so they can stand on their own two feet. The Palestine/Israel conflict might give one pause in this regard, they have been "at war" for over 50 years. But if you think about it, the people who the insurgents are really at war with are the coalition forces. I think when we leave, so will much of their motivation for fighting.
A commander in chief who has pretty much lost political support for the war, and who won't be in office in a few years.
I recognize this, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Iraq will be strong enough to stand on its own in two years.
If we don't achieve this goal, then the milestones don't mean shit.
I completely agree with you here. The only way we can truly say we were successful is for us to achieve our strategic goal. But the only way we can measure whether we are going to achieve our goal is by measuring our progress against the goal. And thus far as you have agreed, we are making progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. Here's what Intel's 45nm page says: This important milestone demonstrates that we are on track for 2007 to manufacture chips on 300mm wafers using the new 45nm (P1266) process, in accordance with Moore's Law.
Intel shipped a few 65nm processors in 2005, but didn't really get started until 2006, and full conversion might not have happened yet, although all the important plants should have migrated by now.
Even if true, AMD has yet to ship a SINGLE 65nm processor. By this measure alone, I'd say the claim that they are a year behind is quite adequete. But by the speed at which AMD is producing fab plants, I'd argue that they are or soon will be an entire chip generation behind.
AMD have been behind on the process node, but that's not the only issue when it comes to making chips, although it is the most major. SS + SOI are other technologies that AMD is far ahead of Intel on, and they help reduce power significantly - hence AMD's low power 90nm processors compared to Intel's 90nm, and even Intel's 65nm P4s, and AMD aren't doing too badly in terms of performance/Watt right now either.
Traditionally Intel has won the absolute performance title. As you said yourself it is the biggest factor when it comes to performance/Watt statistics. If been following any of the Core 2 Duo reviews, Intel is now dominating in that arena too.
is to reduce the distance between their transistors from 90nm to 65. Intel started shipping their 65nm chips nearly a year ago (OCT 2005), while AMD has yet to ship any. AMD isn't expected to be fully converted to the 65nm process until mid-2007, and by then Intel is expected to start shipping their 45nm chips. AMD is playing catch-up these days and it's hurting them bad.
I will kill 10 animals. Congratulations, you have just activated another cell.
Wow you are really not that great at picking up sarcasm are you?
With increasing manning shortages and prolonged deployments, many service members find themselves working 60 hours a week at home and 72 hours deployed. It's the new normal.
I don't think anyone here has really captured the message Colbert was really trying to convey. Wikiality is not about the tyranny of the majority, or the "undeserving" importance that some wiki entries get, but that truth is something that is decidable, that it isn't immutatable. The greatest demonstration of this effect is in wikipedia, where changing what is truth is just one edit away. He goes on to satirically say that all truths should be mutuable like this. With millions still believing the government's lies that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, I think we can all agree that wikiality has become the new reality.
Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons? Answer: Israel. (Ignore this, lameness filter bypass)
Yeah, except for that one nation called Pakistan. Oh and Iran in 10 years if we let them.
Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
Except for that country called Iran. Yeah, they signed it, but they certainly haven't lived up to the treaty. Not to mention that Syria has not signed the CWC or BTWC.
You know I was intending of going line by line on your commentary, but it's obvious from your first two "points" that you did not intend to add a well-researched comment to this discussion and I know better ways of spending a Sunday afternoon than exposing trolls.
Hacktivist hacks happen all the time. Is someone trolling for an Israeli-Lebanon Conflict discussion?
And what would you have them be? Terrified? Emotionless?
In case you haven't noticed, these guys are at war. Which means they are under a great deal of stress. Probably a greater deal of stress than you or I will ever come to know. Probably a greater adreniline rush than you or I will ever come to know. Their attitudes which you found so crude are their way of dealing with the stress and associated side effects. It's war. I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
This may be hard for you to accept, but in war people die. Their language may be crude, but either way I'm sure it makes no difference to the dead insurgent and all the difference in the world to our guys who live to fight another day.
Except for games.
I sympathize with your skepticism of this project's value. But I disagree with attitude of discounting the threat. For starters there have been several instinces throughout history where terrorists have used missiles to shoot down passenger aircraft. But more to the point, if insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan can use RPGs or MANPADs to bring down military aircraft, I think it's safe to say the same tools are just as a capable of bringing down a commercial. In fact, given that commercial airlines are relatively unmanueverable as well as the fact that they don't carry any countermeasures, you have to assume increased plausability.
Student's "don't shed their constituiotnal rights... at the schoolhouse gate."
- Tinker v. Des Moines
Are you really that naieve? Profit knows no "evil customer" or "good customer", not even to the Europeans. Do some research.
More likely: I'll take 50,000 dumb-mines and 25,000 smart-mines, and use them where they make sense. Same reason why we still have dumb bombs and precision guided munitions.
Is that argument supposed to convince me that landmines are barbaric? Because it's not really an argument when your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises but from an empty assertion. Unless you expected me to take the following argument seriously.
Premise 1: Giraffes are tall.
Premise 2: Bronchosauruses are tall.
Premise 3: Bronochosauruses are extinct.
Conclusion: Giraffes are extinct.
There is a significant difference between landmines and killing POWs. We gain an incredible tactical advantage which has the potential to be convereted to a strategic win with landmines. Even if you are incredibly outmatched, landmines can be used to slow an enemy's advancement and allow you to retreat or even pin an otherwise overpowering enemy to a certain location which can be eliminated later with airstrikes. Yes there is a collateral damage risk with using landmines but those risks can be mitigated with careful emplacement and techonology that disables the mines by setting their estimated period of usefulness. Now compare this to killing POWs. What significant advantage do we gain by killing POWs? Yes, providing for POWs would free up some soliders, but not much. You don't need a large cadre of soldiers to watch over them (see Guantomino Bay). However, killing POWs so that you can free up some soldiers does come at a cost and a very expensive one at that. The main reason we don't kill POWs is not because it's barbaric, but because we wouldn't want our soliders killed if the roles were reveresed.
Or here's my argument again in sentence form:
Premise 1: Landmines are net benefits effective.
Premise 2: Killing POWs are not net benefits effective.
Conclusion: Landmines can be justifiably be used for warfare.
Tag this story slashvertisement.
Apple has a website dedicated to advertising the games that are available for the Mac. A cursory glance of the titles gives the impression that Apple actually has a large videogame library. However upon a closer scrutinization the games are a generation or two behind a series that is currently available to the PC. For example, Apple has Battlefield 1942, but they don't have Battlefield 2. Apple has Civilization III but they don't have Civilization IV. Apple has Ghost Recon but not Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. If Apple really wants to win over the gamer market they are going to have to end the typical 6-12 month delay that a game experiences before being ported to a Mac, if it is ported at all. Otherwise the gamers demographic will continue to be dominated by Microsoft.
Wow you really no nothing about nuclear sales do you?
Now comes the hard part: make friends to utilize their party room.
Just one drawn on the hyperbolic plane. ;)
A war that apparently (at least by his poor poll numbers) our president doesn't care about.
What people? The Iraqi people think we should be there. I think they know first hand how wear their government currently is. The American people are doubting the nessecity of our prescence but the president isn't wavering. I think if we are having this same discussion come 2008 elections then we could say things are looking a lot dimmer for a US victory in Iraq, but until then there is still hope.
If I was CinC I would rather have not fought this war, but we are fighting it. So I would ask you, in our present circumstances, what would you change to achieve our goal in a cheaper manner?
After Palestine, I don't imagine turning Iraq into a democracy is as clear-cut an objective as it may have seemed at one time.
Turning Iraq into a democracy I think wasn't so hard. The hard part comes with beefing Iraq up so they can stand on their own two feet. The Palestine/Israel conflict might give one pause in this regard, they have been "at war" for over 50 years. But if you think about it, the people who the insurgents are really at war with are the coalition forces. I think when we leave, so will much of their motivation for fighting.
I recognize this, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Iraq will be strong enough to stand on its own in two years.
If we don't achieve this goal, then the milestones don't mean shit.
I completely agree with you here. The only way we can truly say we were successful is for us to achieve our strategic goal. But the only way we can measure whether we are going to achieve our goal is by measuring our progress against the goal. And thus far as you have agreed, we are making progress.