Meetings between peons and management should be solely about management dealing with managerial issues: communicating what dumb ideas management has had lately for our new direction, dealing with introductions of new team members (or announcing the departure of the newly-laid-off/quit), organisational issues. These are generally not up for discussion, but a few questions may remain.
Anything of a technical nature should not have a manager present.
I find these rules to greatly improve my productivity in meetings. If I want to have a technical discussion, I don't invite the managers, I talk to the other technical people. I then later inform my manager as to the technical decisions made with no invitation for discussion. While that doesn't preclude him trying to weigh in, when I don't actually invite his opinion I find he's less likely to provide it.
Generally, you need at least a dozen years on the kid. In the past, 18-22 years was common, but now it ranges generally from about 14 or 15 years for the first, all the way to 30+. Right there, the parent has been through vastly more than the kid, no matter what age the kid is.
Now, you're technically right that not all parents are good parents. But the other popular assumption I see is that the government knows better than parents (usually with an implied "as long as the government does what I want them to do"), which I think is true sometimes, but far more rarely than the assumption that parents know best.
Of course, if it's a potential client who is simply nervous about her, she could lose gigs. I mean, as long as she has no problems finding work, that's not an issue, but it could mean less competition for her services (less demand may mean less pay), or simply an extra week, month, whatever, that she might have been able to fill with work that she may not be able to this way.
Socially? Sure, no problem. I mean, if you googled my real name, one of the top hits would be a black dude trying to find a date from prison. My coworkers and I have laughted about that. But if that has in any way impeded my ability to job search, that would be, at the very least, unfortunate. (But, in my case, I can't even fathom any suggestion that there is malice here, nevermind something illegal to hang a legal battle on. Poor guy just wants a date. Much unlike the OP's problem.) In a social situation, there's no point in feeding the troll, but in a job search situation, there may be a bigger reason for wanting to bury the ex's ramblings behind a page or three of search rankings.
Yes. Because we don't want any way to prevent student A from cancelling student B's jobs. Or any way for a trusted user, such as the sysadmin, from cancelling all jobs.
And we definitely want all nimwits on the network to have complete and arbitrary control over how many pages they can use, or how much ink. Maximum quality print jobs in a comp sci department printer? No problem! (I remember watching a dot-matrix printer spit out a core file, that was entertaining.)
Definitely, no good whatsoever could come from a printer with any authentication control.
Obviously, Samsung agrees, because all their printers apparently have the same unchangeable admin account and password.
Maybe, yeah, if you're working on commodity hardware, running your test server on a mirrored system makes sense.
When the hardware costs $1m+, having a spare might be economically less feasible.
Oh, and I've seen cases where "mirroring" was incomplete, leading to either errors in test, or, worse, errors when you get to the production system. Not always the best idea, either.
I just used Apache as an example, feel free to use Enterprise-class software (I think the article referred to Oracle, too, but I worked on one of their competitors).
Testing is a big one. Ensuring that your existing apps are going to continue working under the new version. In enterprise-class software, this is sufficient reason right here. There is no need to keep looking for other excuses, it's so critical that everything continues to work with an upgrade that we can spend three months just planning to apply a quarterly update.
Embeddability. I want to run Apache. I also want to run Frobnitz, which embeds Apache (so they can run precisely the version that they've certified against). I also want to run a test version of Apache before I update it. Likewise with Frobnitz. Obviously this is going to throw my port usage all over the place, but that's a whole different can of beans. Maybe Frobnitz is a bad example of an enterprise-class software, but my management still wants to use it (they had the Shiniest Trinkets at the trade show they went to), it embeds Apache, and if Frobnitz is installing a downlevel Apache using RPM with the standard name, I'm screwed.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but I've not been there. I've just been on the other side, where enterprise-class customers have made requirements on us, including multiple copy support, that made continued use of RPM impractical.
Because RPM/DEB makes assumptions. And some of those assumptions are simply invalid for some use cases.
Ever want to install more than one copy of Apache? Maybe you want your database installed somewhere other than default because that's where your GPFS shared disks are mounted? Ok, the latter is possible with RPM, though sometimes a bit more difficult. The former was also possible, but far more painful.
Complex post-requirements? Sure, RPM handles pre-reqs okay, though not circular ones. Post-reqs? When we were switching away from RPM in 2001/2002, no.
Cross platform? No. Want to get your apps installing on Linux, AIX (ok, AIX has RPM now, but it's severely outdated), Sun, HP, and anything else that comes up? Sure, they have their own installers. With their own unique quirks and issues.
In the end, we used tarballs with a Java/C++ front-end. Far simpler. And, for enterprise software, one of the better installers. Though maybe I'm a bit biased there:-)
IBM has agreements like that with most contracting companies. Generally, the way around it is for IBM to pay a finder's fee to the contracting agency if IBM wants to hire the contractor as a regular employee. I've seen it done a few times. Not all contractors are amenable to it, but for those who are, it's a payment to their agency and then hiring can proceed as normal.
I'm not so sure. I recall that at the time that Dubya was trying (and more or less failing from what I could tell) to make a public case for the invasion of Iraq, Clinton actually commented that he was in favour of it.
The reason I remember this so clearly is because it made an impression on me. Here is the current and previous presidents (and one of them being the son of the previous president to this lineup) who, among them, seem to have 12 years or so of knowledge of something (I'm assuming that Dubya had some insight to the matter from his father, and that Clinton, upon taking office, would have had access to the same intelligence as his predecessor, so that's where I come up with 12 years from). What that something is, I don't know, but it was leading both Dubya and Clinton to the same conclusion. Even more odd was that both men, of different parties, were suggesting a conclusion that was not considered popular.
My conclusion from that was that there was some extra top-secret intelligence or something that, as President, both men would have been privvy to, but the rest of us peons were not which would seem to otherwise intelligent men (and, yes, Dubya was intelligent, whether you agreed with him or not) to justify this unpopular position. Maybe they both saw the physical receipts the US had for the sale of chemical weapons to Saddam. We all know he had them, the US did the selling in the first place, and we all know Chemical Ali used some of them on the Kurds, we just may not know how much he had left (and only after invasion of Syria will we find out).
So then you bring up Gore. Well, I hate to break it to you, but Gore would have had the same information, and, because he was the Vice President under Clinton, he would have known that information even during the election. (Dubya might have as well, depending on how much his father shared with him, but we don't know if that sharing happened before or after election. Gore absolutely knew prior to the election, as it was part of his job.) If Clinton was in favour of such an unpopular position, I would have to imagine that this information was compelling, and Gore would likely have been forced to the same conclusion as well.
The only difference might have been the timing. But if the CIA was sending up the same intelligence reports, I remain utterly unconvinced that there would have been significant difference here.
Of course, we're all playing what-ifs on a global world stage with very insufficient information. It'll take 50-75 years for this stuff to be declassified, if ever, and only our great grandchildren will have the ability to tell what's going on. And, by that time, Dubya will be remembered as a President, and Gore, as a former VP, will likely be largely ignored. Whether rightly or wrongly, VPs just don't make it in the history books, which may mean the entire question of whether Gore would or wouldn't have done the same as Dubya would be uninteresting. It'll merely be a question of whether Dubya was justified or not, with a lot less vitriol than is spewed at him today (the vitriol, of course, being reserved for the candidates of their day, not ours).
Oh, I dunno about that. I think they're thinking that a) if you can't find the manual, you'll be forced to upgrade sooner (and, incumbant advantage here: if you have a Toshiba, you're probably more likely to pick Toshiba again), and b) by removing the old documentation, they're probably hoping their competition will have a harder time using old documentation against them (e.g., documented limitations, workarounds, whatever). By not being forced to upgrade, they're losing money. By allowing their competition more time to put out laptops better than Toshiba's old laptops and being able to quote their past failures, they're losing money to their competitors.
Either that, or they have a fresh-outta-school lawyer who has not learned that his job involves "marketing".
So? Do you think that if Google "defeated" Apple that Apple's now-former customers would stop using Google? Most of them would end up on Android phones, further cementing Google's lock-in. A few might end up on Windows8-powered devices, so that might send a few to Bing, but I doubt that it'd be a significant impact. (I'm discounting BB only because I'm guessing RIM won't survive much longer, but I don't think that changing that assumption would materially affect the outcome.)
Pay the bills? She probably got paid in services. You know, they'd help initiate a 3-way call with the actual credit card companies to orally ask to lower her rates. Apparently, that is worth thousands of dollars!
Not being able to store all your MP3s on a $500 (or less) phone when you can use a $200 device to do that is not quite comparable to not being able to travel 300km to visit Grandma in your EV, because the "extra device" here is thousands (my last vehicle purchase was $21k for a used vehicle), nevermind the insurance.
Yes, they're both workarounds. But whereas many can consider $100-$200 as a reasonable "workaround" for their phone's inability to do it all (especially if the phone could sell for an extra $50-$100 if it did have the ability to handle your extra collection), few would consider a spare vehicle to be a cost-effective workaround.
Not to show who is boss and be a badass, but because that should not have been released PERIOD. Did they do any QA at all? WTF..
Seriously? From the debacle that is the product just released at $work, with huge rounds of all-levels-of-management congratulations for getting the product out the door, I'd say that nothing matters other than the date. Not functionality, not quality, not employee retention (12-16 hour days, 7 days a week, for 3 months?). Nothing other than that date. It was going to be delivered come hell or high water.
If it doesn't pan out, someone may lose their job. Maybe a few people. But probably not the same people who decided to deliver on a particular date regardless of readiness.
If Apple is anything like this, it doesn't matter whether QA was finished their job or not. A particular event was scheduled, an announcement had to be made, the product had to be delivered, whether ready or not.
Don't worry. Excepting Hawaii, the US working hours are only about 10 hours long (9AM on the East coast to 5PM on the West coast), the rest have been outsourced to India and China.
More seriously, if the FBI is using proper legal procedures, including valid (not secret) warrants, then fighting crime is perfectly valid. Well, assuming they're fighting what we'd call crime, I suppose. If they're going after small-time pirates for downloading the latest American Idol, it seems like a waste. If they're going after the guys actually trying to lure kids for child porn, or those trying to hack in to the federal government or one of the corporations that owns the federal government, then the question is why they weren't doing it before.
You must work for Lotus. Sorry, but Notes is still an email program. The fact that you think it's a database that also does email shows how disconnected from your customer base you still are.
I expect people to treat my faith with respect because that is the civilised and enlightened thing to do. I expect those who show their ignorance in civilised discourse by denigrating religion to be ostracised by the community. I do not expect the government to do that ostracising.
I've seen both. My co-op had to be paid to count. But I had one job where I worked with other students including an intern who was unpaid. It baffled me. Still does, to be honest. If I'm not providing sufficient value to the company to warrant being paid, I'm not gaining sufficient experience to warrant being there.
Still, my student pay was far far below my post-grad pay. About 50% of my post-grad pay only 8 months later. And yet I was getting paid far above what most non-co-op/non-intern students were likely getting for their summer jobs. I think that both employer and student employee could be said to be happy with the arrangement.
I love the free market. However, the free market is only free when all parties to a transaction have equal knowledge. Deception and fraud are the antithesis of a free market. In a free market, if you want to sell an apple to me for $1, I know what an apple is, you know what $1 is, and the transaction is free. However, if you try to sell me a piece of plastic with some weights in it to make it feel like an apple, and try to sell that as an apple, that's fraud. Similarly, if I give you a forged dollar bill/coin, that's conceptually the same thing (though it's a different law if only because it's also defrauding the government of the sole right to produce legal tender).
If a website purports to support a given candidate with my money, and then fails to do so the way it says, that's fraud. If it does so, then it isn't.
This isn't regulations. Regulations don't enter into it. It's simple: did the website deceive donors for its own enrichment, or did it tell the truth and do exactly what was promised with the received money? Nothing here needs regulation or can be regulated any further than we already have under criminal law.
Gotta love all the comments so far. Apparently, when it's a sleazeball in your own party, it's just a single sleazeball (or a handful of them, whatever), not representative of the party. But when it's the other party, it's poetic justice.
No, people, fraud is fraud, deception is deception, no matter which politics they put on their front door, and no matter who they defraud.
[...] an Intel CPU is probably just re-badged AMD CPU.
It is? Damn, I got ripped off, then! Why didn't anyone tell me this before I plunked down an extra $100 to get my i7 instead of an AMD CPU when they were the same thing all along?
(Taking things out of context will continue for the duration of U.S. Silly Season.)
Slashdot Mirror
Meetings between peons and management should be solely about management dealing with managerial issues: communicating what dumb ideas management has had lately for our new direction, dealing with introductions of new team members (or announcing the departure of the newly-laid-off/quit), organisational issues. These are generally not up for discussion, but a few questions may remain.
Anything of a technical nature should not have a manager present.
I find these rules to greatly improve my productivity in meetings. If I want to have a technical discussion, I don't invite the managers, I talk to the other technical people. I then later inform my manager as to the technical decisions made with no invitation for discussion. While that doesn't preclude him trying to weigh in, when I don't actually invite his opinion I find he's less likely to provide it.
Generally, you need at least a dozen years on the kid. In the past, 18-22 years was common, but now it ranges generally from about 14 or 15 years for the first, all the way to 30+. Right there, the parent has been through vastly more than the kid, no matter what age the kid is.
Now, you're technically right that not all parents are good parents. But the other popular assumption I see is that the government knows better than parents (usually with an implied "as long as the government does what I want them to do"), which I think is true sometimes, but far more rarely than the assumption that parents know best.
Of course, if it's a potential client who is simply nervous about her, she could lose gigs. I mean, as long as she has no problems finding work, that's not an issue, but it could mean less competition for her services (less demand may mean less pay), or simply an extra week, month, whatever, that she might have been able to fill with work that she may not be able to this way.
Socially? Sure, no problem. I mean, if you googled my real name, one of the top hits would be a black dude trying to find a date from prison. My coworkers and I have laughted about that. But if that has in any way impeded my ability to job search, that would be, at the very least, unfortunate. (But, in my case, I can't even fathom any suggestion that there is malice here, nevermind something illegal to hang a legal battle on. Poor guy just wants a date. Much unlike the OP's problem.) In a social situation, there's no point in feeding the troll, but in a job search situation, there may be a bigger reason for wanting to bury the ex's ramblings behind a page or three of search rankings.
Yes. Because we don't want any way to prevent student A from cancelling student B's jobs. Or any way for a trusted user, such as the sysadmin, from cancelling all jobs.
And we definitely want all nimwits on the network to have complete and arbitrary control over how many pages they can use, or how much ink. Maximum quality print jobs in a comp sci department printer? No problem! (I remember watching a dot-matrix printer spit out a core file, that was entertaining.)
Definitely, no good whatsoever could come from a printer with any authentication control.
Obviously, Samsung agrees, because all their printers apparently have the same unchangeable admin account and password.
Maybe, yeah, if you're working on commodity hardware, running your test server on a mirrored system makes sense.
When the hardware costs $1m+, having a spare might be economically less feasible.
Oh, and I've seen cases where "mirroring" was incomplete, leading to either errors in test, or, worse, errors when you get to the production system. Not always the best idea, either.
I just used Apache as an example, feel free to use Enterprise-class software (I think the article referred to Oracle, too, but I worked on one of their competitors).
Testing is a big one. Ensuring that your existing apps are going to continue working under the new version. In enterprise-class software, this is sufficient reason right here. There is no need to keep looking for other excuses, it's so critical that everything continues to work with an upgrade that we can spend three months just planning to apply a quarterly update.
Embeddability. I want to run Apache. I also want to run Frobnitz, which embeds Apache (so they can run precisely the version that they've certified against). I also want to run a test version of Apache before I update it. Likewise with Frobnitz. Obviously this is going to throw my port usage all over the place, but that's a whole different can of beans. Maybe Frobnitz is a bad example of an enterprise-class software, but my management still wants to use it (they had the Shiniest Trinkets at the trade show they went to), it embeds Apache, and if Frobnitz is installing a downlevel Apache using RPM with the standard name, I'm screwed.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but I've not been there. I've just been on the other side, where enterprise-class customers have made requirements on us, including multiple copy support, that made continued use of RPM impractical.
Because RPM/DEB makes assumptions. And some of those assumptions are simply invalid for some use cases.
Ever want to install more than one copy of Apache? Maybe you want your database installed somewhere other than default because that's where your GPFS shared disks are mounted? Ok, the latter is possible with RPM, though sometimes a bit more difficult. The former was also possible, but far more painful.
Complex post-requirements? Sure, RPM handles pre-reqs okay, though not circular ones. Post-reqs? When we were switching away from RPM in 2001/2002, no.
Cross platform? No. Want to get your apps installing on Linux, AIX (ok, AIX has RPM now, but it's severely outdated), Sun, HP, and anything else that comes up? Sure, they have their own installers. With their own unique quirks and issues.
In the end, we used tarballs with a Java/C++ front-end. Far simpler. And, for enterprise software, one of the better installers. Though maybe I'm a bit biased there :-)
IBM has agreements like that with most contracting companies. Generally, the way around it is for IBM to pay a finder's fee to the contracting agency if IBM wants to hire the contractor as a regular employee. I've seen it done a few times. Not all contractors are amenable to it, but for those who are, it's a payment to their agency and then hiring can proceed as normal.
I'm not so sure. I recall that at the time that Dubya was trying (and more or less failing from what I could tell) to make a public case for the invasion of Iraq, Clinton actually commented that he was in favour of it.
The reason I remember this so clearly is because it made an impression on me. Here is the current and previous presidents (and one of them being the son of the previous president to this lineup) who, among them, seem to have 12 years or so of knowledge of something (I'm assuming that Dubya had some insight to the matter from his father, and that Clinton, upon taking office, would have had access to the same intelligence as his predecessor, so that's where I come up with 12 years from). What that something is, I don't know, but it was leading both Dubya and Clinton to the same conclusion. Even more odd was that both men, of different parties, were suggesting a conclusion that was not considered popular.
My conclusion from that was that there was some extra top-secret intelligence or something that, as President, both men would have been privvy to, but the rest of us peons were not which would seem to otherwise intelligent men (and, yes, Dubya was intelligent, whether you agreed with him or not) to justify this unpopular position. Maybe they both saw the physical receipts the US had for the sale of chemical weapons to Saddam. We all know he had them, the US did the selling in the first place, and we all know Chemical Ali used some of them on the Kurds, we just may not know how much he had left (and only after invasion of Syria will we find out).
So then you bring up Gore. Well, I hate to break it to you, but Gore would have had the same information, and, because he was the Vice President under Clinton, he would have known that information even during the election. (Dubya might have as well, depending on how much his father shared with him, but we don't know if that sharing happened before or after election. Gore absolutely knew prior to the election, as it was part of his job.) If Clinton was in favour of such an unpopular position, I would have to imagine that this information was compelling, and Gore would likely have been forced to the same conclusion as well.
The only difference might have been the timing. But if the CIA was sending up the same intelligence reports, I remain utterly unconvinced that there would have been significant difference here.
Of course, we're all playing what-ifs on a global world stage with very insufficient information. It'll take 50-75 years for this stuff to be declassified, if ever, and only our great grandchildren will have the ability to tell what's going on. And, by that time, Dubya will be remembered as a President, and Gore, as a former VP, will likely be largely ignored. Whether rightly or wrongly, VPs just don't make it in the history books, which may mean the entire question of whether Gore would or wouldn't have done the same as Dubya would be uninteresting. It'll merely be a question of whether Dubya was justified or not, with a lot less vitriol than is spewed at him today (the vitriol, of course, being reserved for the candidates of their day, not ours).
Oh, I dunno about that. I think they're thinking that a) if you can't find the manual, you'll be forced to upgrade sooner (and, incumbant advantage here: if you have a Toshiba, you're probably more likely to pick Toshiba again), and b) by removing the old documentation, they're probably hoping their competition will have a harder time using old documentation against them (e.g., documented limitations, workarounds, whatever). By not being forced to upgrade, they're losing money. By allowing their competition more time to put out laptops better than Toshiba's old laptops and being able to quote their past failures, they're losing money to their competitors.
Either that, or they have a fresh-outta-school lawyer who has not learned that his job involves "marketing".
So? Do you think that if Google "defeated" Apple that Apple's now-former customers would stop using Google? Most of them would end up on Android phones, further cementing Google's lock-in. A few might end up on Windows8-powered devices, so that might send a few to Bing, but I doubt that it'd be a significant impact. (I'm discounting BB only because I'm guessing RIM won't survive much longer, but I don't think that changing that assumption would materially affect the outcome.)
Pay the bills? She probably got paid in services. You know, they'd help initiate a 3-way call with the actual credit card companies to orally ask to lower her rates. Apparently, that is worth thousands of dollars!
Yes, yes, yes ... er, EV what?
Not being able to store all your MP3s on a $500 (or less) phone when you can use a $200 device to do that is not quite comparable to not being able to travel 300km to visit Grandma in your EV, because the "extra device" here is thousands (my last vehicle purchase was $21k for a used vehicle), nevermind the insurance.
Yes, they're both workarounds. But whereas many can consider $100-$200 as a reasonable "workaround" for their phone's inability to do it all (especially if the phone could sell for an extra $50-$100 if it did have the ability to handle your extra collection), few would consider a spare vehicle to be a cost-effective workaround.
Not to show who is boss and be a badass, but because that should not have been released PERIOD. Did they do any QA at all? WTF..
Seriously? From the debacle that is the product just released at $work, with huge rounds of all-levels-of-management congratulations for getting the product out the door, I'd say that nothing matters other than the date. Not functionality, not quality, not employee retention (12-16 hour days, 7 days a week, for 3 months?). Nothing other than that date. It was going to be delivered come hell or high water.
If it doesn't pan out, someone may lose their job. Maybe a few people. But probably not the same people who decided to deliver on a particular date regardless of readiness.
If Apple is anything like this, it doesn't matter whether QA was finished their job or not. A particular event was scheduled, an announcement had to be made, the product had to be delivered, whether ready or not.
Don't worry. Excepting Hawaii, the US working hours are only about 10 hours long (9AM on the East coast to 5PM on the West coast), the rest have been outsourced to India and China.
More seriously, if the FBI is using proper legal procedures, including valid (not secret) warrants, then fighting crime is perfectly valid. Well, assuming they're fighting what we'd call crime, I suppose. If they're going after small-time pirates for downloading the latest American Idol, it seems like a waste. If they're going after the guys actually trying to lure kids for child porn, or those trying to hack in to the federal government or one of the corporations that owns the federal government, then the question is why they weren't doing it before.
*sigh*
I keep forgetting that I need to use <sarcasm> tags in /. :-(
Oh, I get it. They'll sell each individual unit at a loss, but they'll make up for it in volume!
I think they still have the "???" step right before that "Profit!" step in their plan.
You must work for Lotus. Sorry, but Notes is still an email program. The fact that you think it's a database that also does email shows how disconnected from your customer base you still are.
I expect people to treat my faith with respect because that is the civilised and enlightened thing to do. I expect those who show their ignorance in civilised discourse by denigrating religion to be ostracised by the community. I do not expect the government to do that ostracising.
I've seen both. My co-op had to be paid to count. But I had one job where I worked with other students including an intern who was unpaid. It baffled me. Still does, to be honest. If I'm not providing sufficient value to the company to warrant being paid, I'm not gaining sufficient experience to warrant being there.
Still, my student pay was far far below my post-grad pay. About 50% of my post-grad pay only 8 months later. And yet I was getting paid far above what most non-co-op/non-intern students were likely getting for their summer jobs. I think that both employer and student employee could be said to be happy with the arrangement.
I love the free market. However, the free market is only free when all parties to a transaction have equal knowledge. Deception and fraud are the antithesis of a free market. In a free market, if you want to sell an apple to me for $1, I know what an apple is, you know what $1 is, and the transaction is free. However, if you try to sell me a piece of plastic with some weights in it to make it feel like an apple, and try to sell that as an apple, that's fraud. Similarly, if I give you a forged dollar bill/coin, that's conceptually the same thing (though it's a different law if only because it's also defrauding the government of the sole right to produce legal tender).
If a website purports to support a given candidate with my money, and then fails to do so the way it says, that's fraud. If it does so, then it isn't.
This isn't regulations. Regulations don't enter into it. It's simple: did the website deceive donors for its own enrichment, or did it tell the truth and do exactly what was promised with the received money? Nothing here needs regulation or can be regulated any further than we already have under criminal law.
(Informative, my ass.)
Gotta love all the comments so far. Apparently, when it's a sleazeball in your own party, it's just a single sleazeball (or a handful of them, whatever), not representative of the party. But when it's the other party, it's poetic justice.
No, people, fraud is fraud, deception is deception, no matter which politics they put on their front door, and no matter who they defraud.
I'm a fairly big google fan, too, but don't you think that might be just a wee bit optimistic?
It got you to click, didn't it? Mission accomplished.
[...] an Intel CPU is probably just re-badged AMD CPU.
It is? Damn, I got ripped off, then! Why didn't anyone tell me this before I plunked down an extra $100 to get my i7 instead of an AMD CPU when they were the same thing all along?
(Taking things out of context will continue for the duration of U.S. Silly Season.)