You've heard it used because it is a valid word, just not the right one for this circumstance. Virii would be plural for many of a single type of virus, like there are 40 trillion poliomyelitis virii in that patient (which has no relevance, but is a good example...). Viruses is plural for many different types of virus, like the common cold is caused by many different types of viruses.
Thank YOU! I was about to post something along these lines when I decided to make sure it hadn't already been posted. I can't believe it, like a hundred comments on Urey-Miller that has nothing to do with this, but was the first post;), but nothing relavent to the man behind the controversy. Venter is most DEFINATELY a business man first and basically everything he does is blown WAY out of proportion. I wonder how many people here realise that he and Celera Genomics are the main proponent behind patenting the human genome...
Head over to www.celera.com before deciding he's the best biologist since Watson and Crick...
Update: It has come to our attention that MS Breathable Gas MAY have a compatibility issue with the gasses provided by competitor's such as Mother Nature (NasDAQ: ERTH); the compatibility could theoretically cause such problems as mass extinction, however this has not yet been verified by MS owned independant labs. An upgrade to MS Atmosphere 2000 which address this deficiency and has a wide range of new ones will be available shortly.
I didn't mean to suggest that he didn't know what he was doing. Quite the opposite, I mearly suggested that he had never heard of VNC:) I assumed that most people would like to download a free and exceedingly simple program, try it out, and see if it DOES suite their needs BEFORE buying hardware. He will probably end up going with a hardware solution, I just wanted to make sure that he had heard of the other POSSIBLE solutions.
I agree VNC does not solve all the problems that a hardware switch might, but it also solves several others, most notably you could have a LOT of machines networked before you ran into a problem (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.6x10^7 if he used a firewall...).
Hey, don't bitch about the DSL... You will eventually get it. It could be worse. If I lived 400 feet down the road, I would have cable modem access for $25 a month instead of the $20 a month for 28.8k (sometimes 31.2k!!!:/ ). I am serviced by a different cable company which outright SUCKS by comparison.
Did you see the episode with the tongue-in-cheek lawsuit of the human against the "little grey man"? It left an odd taste in the mouth of those who resented any kind of slavery lawsuits, but it was funny as hell. "Your honor, the defendant's great-great-grandfather abducted my client's great-great-grandfather and therefore owes him for decreased family enjoyment and lowered income possibilities.";)
I agree, there may be problems. But thinking that natural mutation in the plant population doesn't happen is fairly ludicrous. Some of the most potent poisons known to man are produced by natural organisms which have been doing so for much longer than man has even KNOWN DNA was genetic material (or for that matter, before man even understood evolution). Just because an agriculturalist picks for a certain phenotype does NOT mean that other traits aren't passed along with it, of course the overwhelming majority of mutations which could occur in a plant genome would be of no harm to us but there ARE some substantial exceptions. Some of the natural deadly mutations may actually give the plant an adaptive advantage which would also be of advantage to an agriculturalist, such as improved resistance to a certain bacteria or insect. It is a known fact that many plants produce potent herbicides and insecticides, the vast majority of these have no direct effect on us but some could.
I realize your point, there ARE dangers associated with transgenic crops...but right now those dangers are fairly limited. Taking four genes out of a bacteria and copying them into a plant's genome WILL NOT cause that plant to produce vast quantities of air borne botulin or something. The biggest consequence would be that the genes would have some wierd adaptive advantage and the plants would breed with the wild type and seriously screw up some food crop. Right now most transgenic crops are made thoroughly sterile (and no, don't quote Jurassic Park or something...no one who has ever ran an Ames test would simply modify a simply biogenetic pathway like thymidine generation and assume that meant the population required vast quantities of thymidine and so was under complete control...) so this isn't much of a problem, but it IS the biggest worry I have with GM crops. As far as the crops being safe to eat, simple manipulation of a handful of genes will NOT make the plant a carcinogen or something unless that was the attempt in the first place. We are rapidly approaching the point where small labs will be able to map complete genomes of organisms very quickly. Oddly enough, many food crops have HUGE amounts of genetic material (due mostly to polyploidy, but that doesn't make it too much easier to deal with unless the polyploid events took place recently...) so they may be among the last things routinely mapped. Once we have this capability though, we will be able to spot check crops and stop random mutations before they are widespread enough to cause damage. This alone makes it worthwhile to develop the genetic techniques needed.
There are other problems with planting the products of many modern crops as well. Many of the traits we like from the crops are only there because the corn (or whatever...although this DOES apply to corn more than most other food products...) is heterozygous for a certain (or many...) trait.
This is a true lide example, so if you don't like reading things like this...don't;) My grandfather is a fairly small time farmer (well, he has several substantial pecan farms...but only grows corn for the hell of it, or at least that's all I've ever seen him do with it...sure we eat some of it, but he ends up giving like 75% of it away...). One particular type of corn he plants is called G90 (I think it is in the final experimental stage at an agri substation of the University of Arkansas, which is where he gets the seeds...). Every year he basically has to beg and plead for seed, so he asks if I know anything about how to basically pick out the "right" kernels to plant. He knew that you couldn't just plant the seed outright and get 100% viable G90... The kernels of the corn are about 25% white and the remainder an off yellow, which leads me to believe it is atleast heterozygous for one trait. At the time I was about to graduate with a biology undergrad degree and had already been accepted intop grad school for molecular biology program so in the ever so less than humble attitude of most wannabe scientists I tell him "sure, shouldn't be a big deal at all." Well, after experimentally planting around 150 kernels (I tried to make the selection as random as possible...but made fairly extensive notes about what was planted where) I believe (this was last summer...and I don't have the notes with me right now...) there were 13 varieties of corn produced. There were three distinct colors (well, whitish yellow and two different shades of yellow), several varieties of mother plant, and some of the kernels were dried out looking. About 30-40 percent of the kernels from the various plants would have been viable to sell, but only 10-15% of the corn ears were completely viable, most had atleast a few percent of the dried out looking kernels which looked rather unappetizing. I did figure out that the white color was a recessive trait because ALL of the white kernels which were planted produced other white kernels and the yellow kernels produced mixed results. I am assuming that the odd shade of yellow was actually produced by something else and not the primary pigment because the numbers where just too close to simple dominant-recessive single gene on that factor. Assuming I could have continued the experiment into this past summer and maybe even next year (or have access to a greenhouse...), I'm sure I could have true bred some of the traits and turned the corn back into something approaching sellable (no shriveled kernels...) but it it would have taken a great deal of effort and time to produce a seed line (set of parents) that would generate exactly what I started out with 100% (or high 90s at least...)of the time.
Basically, my point is that there is more to it than just storing seed (which you pointed out would be a considerable expense for any farmer planting more than a few acres of corn and less than a few thousand...).
Have you ever eaten a tomato? How about corn (or any corn product)? Do you know what true wild type corn and tomatoes look like? Comparing what we call corn and tomatoes to what these vegetables are like in the natural world is (pardon the pun;) like comparing apples to oranges. The next time you are in South America take a look at what the local market calls corn, then drive seventy miles down the road and look at what their market calls corn. The two types of corn may be different COLOR (and I don't mean sickly whitish yellow versus bold yellow...I mean like BLUE or GREY...). Oh, and those aren't the actual wild types either, they have just been cultivated less severely.
Since the dawn of the agricultural age (and actually before if you consider breeding of dogs and such), man has been tampering with the genetics of other organisms. Up until recently we were using nature to slice and dice the genetic material and we acted as an artificial selection mechanism (we picked what we liked, not what was most adapted to a certain place...). Now we are simply skipping the middle man and transplanting genes across genetic lines. In all honesty this is SAFER than simply promoting random mutation. When we transplant genetic material, we usually go after VERY specific things(hopefully, or you never know what you would get...and it costs too mcuh to generate mass quantities of GM things just to see what happens:). Take the transfer of the human insulin gene into E. coli. We knew we would have to wait a LONG time for random mutation to produce a strain of E. coli which naturally generated insulin. Even assuming it did come about, it probably wouldn't produce too much of it (it doesn't need it, so where is any pressure to produce it...). So the simple step of copying the gene into the E. coli genome was taken (actually, a lot of copies where put in...but you get the picture), now that strain of E. coli produces insulin that MILLIONS of people need to live.
I know I went off on a little rant there (and it may not be completely cohesive...I'm pretty much running off of Mountain Dew and ephedrine right now...I may re-post after a few hours of sleep;) but the point should be clear. We aren't doing anything we weren't doing before, we are just skipping the middle man. With the plastic producing plant, all that happened was they took genes that coded for something that they wanted (that occur NATURALLY...these aren't artificial genes coding for purely man made proteins or something like that ) and copied them into somethign easy to grow big so that the stuff they code far is easy to gather. Humans aren't too far from being able to hand code genes to produce what we want (actually we can kinda do it now, but the whole secondary structure of proteins thing still has us kinda at a standstill...), but as of right now we are limited to either copying what has already been made in nature or mildly altering it by only a few base sequences (or a handful of amino acids if you wanna take the protein view...).
See my above comment. The Creative Lab Graphics Blaster 3D has 4 MB of RAMBUS memory. Of course it sucked (having a Cirrus Logic chipset and all:), but it DOES exist and you could probably buy a gross of them for $1000. I'm pretty sure that there were a LOT of boards based on this CL chipset and all had RAMBUS memory.
Creative Labs had a product out a few years or so ago called the Graphics Blaster 3D (based on a Cirrus Logic chipset). This product had 4 MB of RAMBUS memory.
One of my cats used to chew on cables, until it happened to bite a 12v and a ground at the same time... Now it doesn't like to even come into this room:)
Winbond makes a LOT more than just temperature monitoring chips. THey produce a lot of different I/O chips that used to be staples of the motherboard business before completely integrated solutions ("motherboard chipsets") became available...
Sorry, even kevlar doesn't have the strength to weight ratio needed. I've seen some estimates that some REALLY exotic materials could be used, namely Buckytubes, but those materials are only available in really good labs. It will be a LONG time before a space elevator is technically feasible, but the shear monetary boom one would allow should help funding along nicely.
They are, but the US likes to keep anyone they can on a short leash. Isreal also likes war a little too much to allow them access to "high-end" computing power (what ever that means now...).
I AM NOT a US hater, I've never lived anywhere else... I just think this is the real reason and the argument that they would publicly use.
Maybe you should check out anything older than their M2. Only their newest chips are 2.2V. The M-II 300 was still 2.9 and ran hot as a fire cracker (and you don't even want to talk about the 6x86)...
Electrons are fine for the time being. Those smaller particles tend to behave, well, wierd... Also electrons are quite stable compared to these other things. I think that by the time we understand quantum mechanics thoroughly enoughto really harness the power of such a system, we will be using DNA (or other organic base) computers. These will be quite a bit more powerful than our retrofitted old style CPUs and after 20-40 years of those we might be ready for REAL quantum computers (not systems where you learn to deal with the oddities, but where you can take advantage of the oddities).
There may be some more intermediate systems based on photons, but that probably will not be a long lasting step but more of a stepping stone...
You are right, sort of. The biggest problem is the actual word overclocking... Chips are NOT specified to run at a certain absolute speed, they are specified to run at a certain speed in a certain environment. If you take a K6-2 300 and run it at 233 but without any sort of heatsink/fan it will probably quit on you pretty soon. Effectively the part was stated to run at 300 MHz with a heatsink (or whatever other method) with a minimum of a certain rated heat dissipation rate. Basically, by varying the environment in which the chip runs you can completely invalidate the stated operating frequency.
In another note, yes a change in clock frequency would be needed to note any sort of speed up from the chip. The chip will run more efficiently in terms of required voltage (which in turn lowers the amount of heat dissipated) but will NOT run faster at the same speed.
I could give a nice car analogy that I thought up while typing this (can't exactly touch type with an HPC keyboard...), but I'm sure you will get my point. More or less you are right, but it depends on your definition of overclocking...
Re:The South--er, I mean the Alpha shall rise agai
on
1GHz Alphas
·
· Score: 1
That was the fastest MAINSTREAM CPU, not CPU in general. The actual quote was "fastest PC microchip available in retail stores."
Slashdot Mirror
You've heard it used because it is a valid word, just not the right one for this circumstance. Virii would be plural for many of a single type of virus, like there are 40 trillion poliomyelitis virii in that patient (which has no relevance, but is a good example...). Viruses is plural for many different types of virus, like the common cold is caused by many different types of viruses.
Thank YOU! I was about to post something along these lines when I decided to make sure it hadn't already been posted. I can't believe it, like a hundred comments on Urey-Miller that has nothing to do with this, but was the first post ;), but nothing relavent to the man behind the controversy. Venter is most DEFINATELY a business man first and basically everything he does is blown WAY out of proportion. I wonder how many people here realise that he and Celera Genomics are the main proponent behind patenting the human genome...
Head over to www.celera.com before deciding he's the best biologist since Watson and Crick...
Update: It has come to our attention that MS Breathable Gas MAY have a compatibility issue with the gasses provided by competitor's such as Mother Nature (NasDAQ: ERTH); the compatibility could theoretically cause such problems as mass extinction, however this has not yet been verified by MS owned independant labs. An upgrade to MS Atmosphere 2000 which address this deficiency and has a wide range of new ones will be available shortly.
I didn't mean to suggest that he didn't know what he was doing. Quite the opposite, I mearly suggested that he had never heard of VNC :) I assumed that most people would like to download a free and exceedingly simple program, try it out, and see if it DOES suite their needs BEFORE buying hardware. He will probably end up going with a hardware solution, I just wanted to make sure that he had heard of the other POSSIBLE solutions.
I agree VNC does not solve all the problems that a hardware switch might, but it also solves several others, most notably you could have a LOT of machines networked before you ran into a problem (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.6x10^7 if he used a firewall...).
Why get a multiswitch? Why not just get software to control all the systems from the same computer?
:)
I've found the one at
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/
to be among the best, and it is free. Actually, it is even GPLed!!!
Versions for everything from Linux-X11 to Windows CE...
Of course this is assuming you have everything networked, but surely you do
Hey, don't bitch about the DSL... You will eventually get it. It could be worse. If I lived 400 feet down the road, I would have cable modem access for $25 a month instead of the $20 a month for 28.8k (sometimes 31.2k!!! :/ ). I am serviced by a different cable company which outright SUCKS by comparison.
Did you see the episode with the tongue-in-cheek lawsuit of the human against the "little grey man"? It left an odd taste in the mouth of those who resented any kind of slavery lawsuits, but it was funny as hell. "Your honor, the defendant's great-great-grandfather abducted my client's great-great-grandfather and therefore owes him for decreased family enjoyment and lowered income possibilities." ;)
I agree, there may be problems. But thinking that natural mutation in the plant population doesn't happen is fairly ludicrous. Some of the most potent poisons known to man are produced by natural organisms which have been doing so for much longer than man has even KNOWN DNA was genetic material (or for that matter, before man even understood evolution). Just because an agriculturalist picks for a certain phenotype does NOT mean that other traits aren't passed along with it, of course the overwhelming majority of mutations which could occur in a plant genome would be of no harm to us but there ARE some substantial exceptions. Some of the natural deadly mutations may actually give the plant an adaptive advantage which would also be of advantage to an agriculturalist, such as improved resistance to a certain bacteria or insect. It is a known fact that many plants produce potent herbicides and insecticides, the vast majority of these have no direct effect on us but some could.
I realize your point, there ARE dangers associated with transgenic crops...but right now those dangers are fairly limited. Taking four genes out of a bacteria and copying them into a plant's genome WILL NOT cause that plant to produce vast quantities of air borne botulin or something. The biggest consequence would be that the genes would have some wierd adaptive advantage and the plants would breed with the wild type and seriously screw up some food crop. Right now most transgenic crops are made thoroughly sterile (and no, don't quote Jurassic Park or something...no one who has ever ran an Ames test would simply modify a simply biogenetic pathway like thymidine generation and assume that meant the population required vast quantities of thymidine and so was under complete control...) so this isn't much of a problem, but it IS the biggest worry I have with GM crops. As far as the crops being safe to eat, simple manipulation of a handful of genes will NOT make the plant a carcinogen or something unless that was the attempt in the first place. We are rapidly approaching the point where small labs will be able to map complete genomes of organisms very quickly. Oddly enough, many food crops have HUGE amounts of genetic material (due mostly to polyploidy, but that doesn't make it too much easier to deal with unless the polyploid events took place recently...) so they may be among the last things routinely mapped. Once we have this capability though, we will be able to spot check crops and stop random mutations before they are widespread enough to cause damage. This alone makes it worthwhile to develop the genetic techniques needed.
There are other problems with planting the products of many modern crops as well. Many of the traits we like from the crops are only there because the corn (or whatever...although this DOES apply to corn more than most other food products...) is heterozygous for a certain (or many...) trait.
;) My grandfather is a fairly small time farmer (well, he has several substantial pecan farms...but only grows corn for the hell of it, or at least that's all I've ever seen him do with it...sure we eat some of it, but he ends up giving like 75% of it away...). One particular type of corn he plants is called G90 (I think it is in the final experimental stage at an agri substation of the University of Arkansas, which is where he gets the seeds...). Every year he basically has to beg and plead for seed, so he asks if I know anything about how to basically pick out the "right" kernels to plant. He knew that you couldn't just plant the seed outright and get 100% viable G90... The kernels of the corn are about 25% white and the remainder an off yellow, which leads me to believe it is atleast heterozygous for one trait. At the time I was about to graduate with a biology undergrad degree and had already been accepted intop grad school for molecular biology program so in the ever so less than humble attitude of most wannabe scientists I tell him "sure, shouldn't be a big deal at all." Well, after experimentally planting around 150 kernels (I tried to make the selection as random as possible...but made fairly extensive notes about what was planted where) I believe (this was last summer...and I don't have the notes with me right now...) there were 13 varieties of corn produced. There were three distinct colors (well, whitish yellow and two different shades of yellow), several varieties of mother plant, and some of the kernels were dried out looking. About 30-40 percent of the kernels from the various plants would have been viable to sell, but only 10-15% of the corn ears were completely viable, most had atleast a few percent of the dried out looking kernels which looked rather unappetizing. I did figure out that the white color was a recessive trait because ALL of the white kernels which were planted produced other white kernels and the yellow kernels produced mixed results. I am assuming that the odd shade of yellow was actually produced by something else and not the primary pigment because the numbers where just too close to simple dominant-recessive single gene on that factor. Assuming I could have continued the experiment into this past summer and maybe even next year (or have access to a greenhouse...), I'm sure I could have true bred some of the traits and turned the corn back into something approaching sellable (no shriveled kernels...) but it it would have taken a great deal of effort and time to produce a seed line (set of parents) that would generate exactly what I started out with 100% (or high 90s at least...)of the time.
This is a true lide example, so if you don't like reading things like this...don't
Basically, my point is that there is more to it than just storing seed (which you pointed out would be a considerable expense for any farmer planting more than a few acres of corn and less than a few thousand...).
Have you ever eaten a tomato? How about corn (or any corn product)? Do you know what true wild type corn and tomatoes look like? Comparing what we call corn and tomatoes to what these vegetables are like in the natural world is (pardon the pun ;) like comparing apples to oranges. The next time you are in South America take a look at what the local market calls corn, then drive seventy miles down the road and look at what their market calls corn. The two types of corn may be different COLOR (and I don't mean sickly whitish yellow versus bold yellow...I mean like BLUE or GREY...). Oh, and those aren't the actual wild types either, they have just been cultivated less severely.
:). Take the transfer of the human insulin gene into E. coli. We knew we would have to wait a LONG time for random mutation to produce a strain of E. coli which naturally generated insulin. Even assuming it did come about, it probably wouldn't produce too much of it (it doesn't need it, so where is any pressure to produce it...). So the simple step of copying the gene into the E. coli genome was taken (actually, a lot of copies where put in...but you get the picture), now that strain of E. coli produces insulin that MILLIONS of people need to live.
;) but the point should be clear. We aren't doing anything we weren't doing before, we are just skipping the middle man. With the plastic producing plant, all that happened was they took genes that coded for something that they wanted (that occur NATURALLY...these aren't artificial genes coding for purely man made proteins or something like that ) and copied them into somethign easy to grow big so that the stuff they code far is easy to gather. Humans aren't too far from being able to hand code genes to produce what we want (actually we can kinda do it now, but the whole secondary structure of proteins thing still has us kinda at a standstill...), but as of right now we are limited to either copying what has already been made in nature or mildly altering it by only a few base sequences (or a handful of amino acids if you wanna take the protein view...).
Since the dawn of the agricultural age (and actually before if you consider breeding of dogs and such), man has been tampering with the genetics of other organisms. Up until recently we were using nature to slice and dice the genetic material and we acted as an artificial selection mechanism (we picked what we liked, not what was most adapted to a certain place...). Now we are simply skipping the middle man and transplanting genes across genetic lines. In all honesty this is SAFER than simply promoting random mutation. When we transplant genetic material, we usually go after VERY specific things(hopefully, or you never know what you would get...and it costs too mcuh to generate mass quantities of GM things just to see what happens
I know I went off on a little rant there (and it may not be completely cohesive...I'm pretty much running off of Mountain Dew and ephedrine right now...I may re-post after a few hours of sleep
Yea, both my undergrad and grad school IDs have my SSN on them.
Those would be Arkansas Tech and University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, respectively...
If I remember correctly, ATU did allow us to change the numbers if we wanted to, but I don't think I ever used the card for anything anyway...
See my above comment. The Creative Lab Graphics Blaster 3D has 4 MB of RAMBUS memory. Of course it sucked (having a Cirrus Logic chipset and all :), but it DOES exist and you could probably buy a gross of them for $1000. I'm pretty sure that there were a LOT of boards based on this CL chipset and all had RAMBUS memory.
Creative Labs had a product out a few years or so ago called the Graphics Blaster 3D (based on a Cirrus Logic chipset). This product had 4 MB of RAMBUS memory.
a tures.html 1 997/p970303.html
:)...
http://www.soundblaster.com/graphics/gb%2D3d/fe
http://www.soundblaster.com/pressroom/releases/
I would post in HTML, but I'm kinda pressed for time (and I'm typing this on an HPC
One of my cats used to chew on cables, until it happened to bite a 12v and a ground at the same time... Now it doesn't like to even come into this room :)
You misread the article. You get the EQUIVALENT of a month of your old CPUs time, in other words about 3 or 4 minutes tops on the new machine :)
Winbond makes a LOT more than just temperature monitoring chips. THey produce a lot of different I/O chips that used to be staples of the motherboard business before completely integrated solutions ("motherboard chipsets") became available...
The Amiga wasn't "invented" until 1986, I seriously doubt the SR71 was retrofitted with this technology :)
Why would you record a behind the scenes thing about the Blair Witch Project? The movie comes out in less than two weeks...
Sorry, even kevlar doesn't have the strength to weight ratio needed. I've seen some estimates that some REALLY exotic materials could be used, namely Buckytubes, but those materials are only available in really good labs. It will be a LONG time before a space elevator is technically feasible, but the shear monetary boom one would allow should help funding along nicely.
They are, but the US likes to keep anyone they can on a short leash. Isreal also likes war a little too much to allow them access to "high-end" computing power (what ever that means now...).
I AM NOT a US hater, I've never lived anywhere else... I just think this is the real reason and the argument that they would publicly use.
I would have to say that beers kill far more than bears, but I would bet that bears hurt a LOT more. :)
Maybe you should check out anything older than their M2. Only their newest chips are 2.2V. The M-II 300 was still 2.9 and ran hot as a fire cracker (and you don't even want to talk about the 6x86)...
Electrons are fine for the time being. Those smaller particles tend to behave, well, wierd... Also electrons are quite stable compared to these other things. I think that by the time we understand quantum mechanics thoroughly enoughto really harness the power of such a system, we will be using DNA (or other organic base) computers. These will be quite a bit more powerful than our retrofitted old style CPUs and after 20-40 years of those we might be ready for REAL quantum computers (not systems where you learn to deal with the oddities, but where you can take advantage of the oddities).
There may be some more intermediate systems based on photons, but that probably will not be a long lasting step but more of a stepping stone...
You are right, sort of. The biggest problem is the actual word overclocking... Chips are NOT specified to run at a certain absolute speed, they are specified to run at a certain speed in a certain environment. If you take a K6-2 300 and run it at 233 but without any sort of heatsink/fan it will probably quit on you pretty soon. Effectively the part was stated to run at 300 MHz with a heatsink (or whatever other method) with a minimum of a certain rated heat dissipation rate. Basically, by varying the environment in which the chip runs you can completely invalidate the stated operating frequency.
...
In another note, yes a change in clock frequency would be needed to note any sort of speed up from the chip. The chip will run more efficiently in terms of required voltage (which in turn lowers the amount of heat dissipated) but will NOT run faster at the same speed.
I could give a nice car analogy that I thought up while typing this (can't exactly touch type with an HPC keyboard...), but I'm sure you will get my point. More or less you are right, but it depends on your definition of overclocking
That was the fastest MAINSTREAM CPU, not CPU in general. The actual quote was "fastest PC microchip available in retail stores."