So just let the scientists be scientists, since raw empirical evidence is the only way we'll ever answer this question in our lifetimes.
Yes, so it should be. In fact, raw empirical evidence has shown that microwaves cause DNA breaks. But the scientists doing those experiments are ridiculed, or have seen their funding pulled. Henry Lai for example: http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html
the law thinks it can control file sharing. it can't.
Though it is nearly impossible to control sharing, sharing may not be the only or even the main motivation behind the law. Consider that pretty much anyone can be accused of file sharing, irrespective of whether the person actually engaged in it. How would you defend yourself? It is your word against theirs.
In short, if approved, this law provides an excuse to deny any citizen Internet access. In particular, it can be used to deny access to people engaged in exposing lies and other activities deemed to be subversive. That may the secondary or even main motivation.
Well, you can take your own arguments as sufficient to leave the subject rest. Or you can reserve judgment and take in further data. As to your first point: the book I directed you to is anything but sketchy, it is very well-referenced. If you don't trust the book, you can still trace the source material it references. If you don't care to invest money in it, here is a freely downloadable article that covers part of the topic, and it is well-referenced too: http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf
As to autism and vaccines, quite a few informed and qualified people are of the opinion that there is in fact such a link. You say the correlations are just not there. I am aware that there are quite a few (typically industry sponsored) studies that purport to show through statistics there is nothing to it. But then, let me point out the title of this thread. For an alternate opinion, download and watch the following video: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1113910
As to conspiracies, well they do happen. Seeing well-funded and well-coordinated denial of realities obviously present in raw data pretty much implies conspiracy, But it leaves the question of why. Digging a little deeper, though, does allow a good case for an answer to the question "why?" to be made. The latter part of the following talk does just that: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646
OK, point granted: the body can cope with the formaldehyde produced during normal metabolism. Does that mean that the formaldehyde from the potentially rather different aspartame metabolism can be coped with? Not necessarily. In fact, there is data that shows that it cannot.
A Spanish research group has managed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9714421 to trace where the formaldehyde produced during aspartame metabolism binds. They did so by radiolabeling the methanol group of aspartame. The formaldehyde was found to bind to protein and DNA in various tissues, with the adducts accumulating under prolonged exposure.
This does beg the question how the formaldehyde is kept from doing damage during normal metabolism, as it is a pretty reactive molecule. Perhaps the normal metabolic pathway occurs inside a cell vacuole, thus keeping the formaldehyde segragated.
A whopping.026% more than the body produces under normal conditions in one day.
0.026% more than the formaldehyde the body produces under normal conditions in one day? Let's see, that would mean that according to you the body produces 13mg*(100/0.026) = 50 grams of formaldehyde, each day. Bullshit.
You need to have a context and know where the chart came from.
Oh, I fully agree. Do you have that context and did you trace the sources of the charts? Nope, you did not. You read a review and deferred to its authority. Did you verify the research you quote that found no association between vaccines and risks? Nope, you believe them as they have been published by "reputable scientists".
Consider that studies are easily bought and corrupted. If the reason for it all is what I say, the interests are so large that that is just what you would expect to happen. So, how can you really know if the studies you quote are correct? Two ways: look at the raw data and interpret it yourself, or look at who funded those that did the studies.
Or just go back to sleep and take your flu shot each year.
And vitamin B12 metabolizes to free cyanide. Therefore, I assume you will stop ingesting food with it?
Don't compare apples to oranges. One Diet Coke contain 135 milligrams of Aspartame. The recommended daily intake of vitamin B12 is 15 micrograms. Moreover, the toxicity mechanism is quite different: cyanide is an inhibitor of a specific enzyme, formaldehyde can cause many a-specific reactions, e.g. cross linking of protein chains.
Also, consider that we have evolved to cope with a diet that includes vitamin B12, so from a purely evolutionary perspective you can be sure our bodies can cope with it in reasonable quantities. We have not evolved to cope with Aspartame.
World Natural Health Organization you cite. Its no wonder if you go to the main page they also don't believe in global climate change, are anti-gay-marriage, anti-vaccination, anti-flouride, anti-abortion, and anti-aspartame, whack jobs.
The page I linked to was an abstract/introduction of a book by authors not associated with that website. If you have an issue with the book, take on the book and the statistics and references therein. For vaccinations, fluoride, and aspartame there is good research that shows that these are in fact quite toxic/damaging. For vaccines, a good well-sourced overview can be found here: http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302. Fluoride toxicity has long been known. And for aspartame you only need to know that it metabolizes to formaldehyde to know enough.
Of course, you will still think it to be nonsense because it implies something quite unbelievable: that millions of people are being knowingly put at risk, damaged, and poisoned. That can't be, can it? Well... there is a simple explanation for it all: this world is being run by genocidal maniacs. To see who these people are, take a look at the following big genocide that is not being reported on, yet is being executed more or less out in the open http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7957. Yup, Henry is still at it.
Of course, in the west, we can't have overt genocide. It is essential that we believe ourselves to be free. Hence the deal with medication. It is perfect for covert genocide, and you can even have victims themselves pay for it.
Certainly, we should beware of iffy medication imported from abroad. But are the approved domestic drugs and treatments that safe? Have a look at these statistics: http://www.wnho.net/deathbymedicine.htm. Close to a million deaths in the US, each year.
So investing time and money into understanding and combating both types of flu is understandable.
Indeed, infectious diseases should be carefully researched and closely monitored. But does that warrant the scare mongering enacted in the public media concerning flu and bird flu when the actual risk is very very low in comparison to other common risks? And does that low risk warrant the side effects and cost of all those yearly flu shots people are given?
Why not verify the data that is supposed to show that vaccines are even effective? Here is a book to help you out with that http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302. Yes, you can interpret statistics in many ways, but the fact of the matter is that vaccines have been sold to the public and policy makers based on statistics of infectious disease reductions that occurred with improvements of hygiene, not with the later introduction of vaccination programs.
but ordinary flu kills several orders of magnitude more people each year and represents a significant threat to our society.
That is a the popular perception. But it does not reflect reality: death risk from ordinary flu is actually statistically negligible. See for example this page http://thinktwice.com/cdc_2001.pdf taken from the CDC National Vital Statistics Report.
Yes, those are official statistics. Time to think twice. Yes, part of it is the good money made on all those flu shots. But that is only a small part of it. To learn more about the real reason, watch this talk by radiologist David Ayoub: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646. Hard to believe? Verify the sources, they check out. Welcome to the real world.
but when reading this on his page (...) it is quite obvious that this guy didn't understand even the basics of the General Theory of Relativity.
Someone with his bio has studied GR, and no doubt he did apply GR as part of his research. I think you make the basic error of equating theory (GR in this case) with truth. And hence any criticism of GR as being somehow suspect. Any theory, including GR, must withstand experimental tests You may be surprised to learn that there is actually quite a bit of experimental evidence that is in conflict with relativity, even down to basic light-speed invariance measurements. For an example, take a look at what Michelson and Moreley actually reported. You'll find that they found a small but experimentally very significant anisotropy.
Anyhow, cosmological observations also run into conflict with relativity. That's why the whole field of cosmology is so controversial: cosmology as such is not that relevant, but physics certainly is.
A theory has to explain observations. This is what current cosmological theories do.
This is simply not true. There is plenty of observational evidence that does not fit current (Big Bang) cosmological theories. They should have been rejected a long time ago. For some of the observational evidence, see http://www.haltonarp.com/articles.
As has been stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, taking home a receipt opens the floodgates for corruption. "Bring me a vote for Candidate XXX, and I'll pay you $10!" "Bring me a vote for Candidate XXX, or you might suffer an 'accident' in the near future."
Each vote would have to be individually coerced or bought, though. And it would have to be done in a fairly overt manner. That is already a large gain over what exists: a system that can be corrupted centrally and covertly, at the polling stations or the central counting machines.
Corruption can be minimized by placing high sanctions on vote buying, awarding reasonable rewards for turning in people involved in vote corruption, having under cover agents solicit vote bribes, and so on. It is not much different than combatting extortion rackets or drug dealing: it cannot be wholly prevented, but it can be minimized.
Votes can't be verifiable after you leave the venue, or you don't have a secret ballot.
Think again. That's where the unique ID per vote helps. Instead of attaching the identity of the voter to the vote, each voter gets a unique anonymous ID number. An easy way to get a unique ID is to use a true random number generator and spit out sufficient bits to make the chance of collisions negligible.
Or you can use something a little more advanced that is still anonymous, but removes any chance of collisions between voters and subsequent elections, e.g. have the machine generate a true random number, but check internally for collisions, and then append unique ID numbers issued per machine and election. That narrows the vote down to the machine, but not the voter.
Of course, care should be taken that whatever is stored per vote can never be used to reconstruct who submitted the vote. For example, a vote sequence number could be correlated to a voter by having a hidden camera at the polling station. But that is something that all kinds of voting mechanisms should avoid, which is yet another reason why it is unacceptable to have closed-source voting machines.
It is not hard to make a voter-verifiable paper-trail voting system. Publish a database of election results that includes a unique ID generated by the voting machine for each vote. Also print that ID on a paper receipt that the voter can take home after voting. Then the voter can verify via the internet if the vote was tallied with the right party/candidate. And it will also be possible to verify the totals by downloading the full database and doing the sums yourself.
On the same paper receipt, the candidate/party that was voted on can be printed. But it is better to hash that information together with the unique ID and encrypt it using a private election key and then print the result on the receipt (e.g. as a hex string). This generates a voting receipt that, when decoded with the public key, is verifyably a receipt of a vote that should have been counted for that election.
When any Big Bang type of theory is mentioned, I sometimes wonder why alternative theories, like the Electric Universe, are never mentioned, as though there is only one way to try to explain cosmological phenomenon.
To get closer to the reason you must take one step back and realize that Big Bang theories are based on general relativity theory. Relativity theory has been elevated to sacred dogma that is defended at all costs. And that includes supression of experimental evidence indicating a slightly variable and varying speed of light. See for example http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html#SEC6, or go back to what Michelson and Moreley actually published and ignore the spin that was applied later. Or look at what Dayton Miller actually measured and reported before the inquisition arrived.
The thing that makes cosmology, and particularly the corresponding astronomical observations, highly political is that any reasonable cosmological model is bound to run into conflict with relativity theory. That's why we're stuck with a patched-up ludicrous model that includes a singularity, inflation, and more ad-hoc magic required to keep the model within the bounds of relativity theory.
The Techreport also has a review up: http://techreport.com/articles.x/13176/1. Barcelona is similar to Core2, clock for clock. It has better energy efficiency and SMP scaling. But the clock frequencies will need to come up in order to beat Intel's highest clocking chips in absolute performance.
Below is a link to a video of a Russian production facility that asserts to show a flying saucer design to be commercialized soon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjBiy2nikBI. Not your usual blurry UFO video...
Well, I can not explain things better than the link you posted (maybe you should read it again).
If you read carefully, you can see what his experiment found, and that the validity of those findings has retained support. That others tried to explain the results away is not surprising: obviously relativity has won the war of words and minds. The neutrality of the article is under dispute for a reason. One side would like you to please move along, nothing to see here, which you of course would prefer to do rather than challenge your own belief system. The other side has a word here http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm.
Are you talking about the errors of the experiment?
No, I am talking about deviations from c markedly larger than the expected error magnitude of the instrument in question. Another series of experiments you might want to look at are those of Dayton-Miller. In particular his original papers and what the man himself thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller. There have been concerted attempts to explaining away those results by defenders of relativity theory...
By itself variable speed of photons does not violate relativity.
A variable speed of photons means a variable speed of light. And that does violate relativity theory since one of the postulates on which the theory is based is a constant speed of light in all reference frames.
If you look into the history of light-speed measurements, you'll see that there is actually quite a bit of other evidence for a variable speed of light. The measured variations are small but well within detection capability of the experiments. The Michelson-Morley experiment, for example, found variations on the order of tens of kilometers per second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_expe riment. Somehow this has gotten lost in the mists of time; theory has prevailed over experiment while it should really be the other way around.
Of course, this implies that string theory is also falsified since it is based on and extends general relativity theory.
I find it interesting that you view asic (eg chip) design to stop at the die level.
I don't, in general, but in the case of Intel's current quads that is basically where the design stopped: there is no special design provision for an interconnect in the package. The dual-core dies are pinned out as two loads on the same front-side bus, electrically equivalent to having each die packaged separately and sitting in a separate socket connected to the same FSB.
When you have two dies in a package that are designed to allow a close intra-package coupling by design, like the two-die core/L2 package used for the Pentium Pro when it was first released, then I agree it's valid to view the package as an integrated whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, so it should be. In fact, raw empirical evidence has shown that microwaves cause DNA breaks. But the scientists doing those experiments are ridiculed, or have seen their funding pulled. Henry Lai for example: http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html
Though it is nearly impossible to control sharing, sharing may not be the only or even the main motivation behind the law. Consider that pretty much anyone can be accused of file sharing, irrespective of whether the person actually engaged in it. How would you defend yourself? It is your word against theirs.
In short, if approved, this law provides an excuse to deny any citizen Internet access. In particular, it can be used to deny access to people engaged in exposing lies and other activities deemed to be subversive. That may the secondary or even main motivation.
Well, you can take your own arguments as sufficient to leave the subject rest. Or you can reserve judgment and take in further data. As to your first point: the book I directed you to is anything but sketchy, it is very well-referenced. If you don't trust the book, you can still trace the source material it references. If you don't care to invest money in it, here is a freely downloadable article that covers part of the topic, and it is well-referenced too: http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf
As to autism and vaccines, quite a few informed and qualified people are of the opinion that there is in fact such a link. You say the correlations are just not there. I am aware that there are quite a few (typically industry sponsored) studies that purport to show through statistics there is nothing to it. But then, let me point out the title of this thread. For an alternate opinion, download and watch the following video: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1113910
As to conspiracies, well they do happen. Seeing well-funded and well-coordinated denial of realities obviously present in raw data pretty much implies conspiracy, But it leaves the question of why. Digging a little deeper, though, does allow a good case for an answer to the question "why?" to be made. The latter part of the following talk does just that: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646
OK, point granted: the body can cope with the formaldehyde produced during normal metabolism. Does that mean that the formaldehyde from the potentially rather different aspartame metabolism can be coped with? Not necessarily. In fact, there is data that shows that it cannot.
A Spanish research group has managed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9714421 to trace where the formaldehyde produced during aspartame metabolism binds. They did so by radiolabeling the methanol group of aspartame. The formaldehyde was found to bind to protein and DNA in various tissues, with the adducts accumulating under prolonged exposure.
This does beg the question how the formaldehyde is kept from doing damage during normal metabolism, as it is a pretty reactive molecule. Perhaps the normal metabolic pathway occurs inside a cell vacuole, thus keeping the formaldehyde segragated.
Oh, I fully agree. Do you have that context and did you trace the sources of the charts? Nope, you did not. You read a review and deferred to its authority. Did you verify the research you quote that found no association between vaccines and risks? Nope, you believe them as they have been published by "reputable scientists".
Consider that studies are easily bought and corrupted. If the reason for it all is what I say, the interests are so large that that is just what you would expect to happen. So, how can you really know if the studies you quote are correct? Two ways: look at the raw data and interpret it yourself, or look at who funded those that did the studies.
Or just go back to sleep and take your flu shot each year.
Don't compare apples to oranges. One Diet Coke contain 135 milligrams of Aspartame. The recommended daily intake of vitamin B12 is 15 micrograms. Moreover, the toxicity mechanism is quite different: cyanide is an inhibitor of a specific enzyme, formaldehyde can cause many a-specific reactions, e.g. cross linking of protein chains.
Also, consider that we have evolved to cope with a diet that includes vitamin B12, so from a purely evolutionary perspective you can be sure our bodies can cope with it in reasonable quantities. We have not evolved to cope with Aspartame.
The page I linked to was an abstract/introduction of a book by authors not associated with that website. If you have an issue with the book, take on the book and the statistics and references therein. For vaccinations, fluoride, and aspartame there is good research that shows that these are in fact quite toxic/damaging. For vaccines, a good well-sourced overview can be found here: http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302. Fluoride toxicity has long been known. And for aspartame you only need to know that it metabolizes to formaldehyde to know enough.
Of course, you will still think it to be nonsense because it implies something quite unbelievable: that millions of people are being knowingly put at risk, damaged, and poisoned. That can't be, can it? Well... there is a simple explanation for it all: this world is being run by genocidal maniacs. To see who these people are, take a look at the following big genocide that is not being reported on, yet is being executed more or less out in the open http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7957. Yup, Henry is still at it.
Of course, in the west, we can't have overt genocide. It is essential that we believe ourselves to be free. Hence the deal with medication. It is perfect for covert genocide, and you can even have victims themselves pay for it.
Certainly, we should beware of iffy medication imported from abroad. But are the approved domestic drugs and treatments that safe? Have a look at these statistics: http://www.wnho.net/deathbymedicine.htm. Close to a million deaths in the US, each year.
Here is a paper by David Ayoub http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. I suggest you trace the references therein. For a good general overview of vaccine issues with many detailed source references, I can recommend this book http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302.
Indeed, infectious diseases should be carefully researched and closely monitored. But does that warrant the scare mongering enacted in the public media concerning flu and bird flu when the actual risk is very very low in comparison to other common risks? And does that low risk warrant the side effects and cost of all those yearly flu shots people are given?
Why not verify the data that is supposed to show that vaccines are even effective? Here is a book to help you out with that http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302. Yes, you can interpret statistics in many ways, but the fact of the matter is that vaccines have been sold to the public and policy makers based on statistics of infectious disease reductions that occurred with improvements of hygiene, not with the later introduction of vaccination programs.
That is a the popular perception. But it does not reflect reality: death risk from ordinary flu is actually statistically negligible. See for example this page http://thinktwice.com/cdc_2001.pdf taken from the CDC National Vital Statistics Report.
Yes, those are official statistics. Time to think twice. Yes, part of it is the good money made on all those flu shots. But that is only a small part of it. To learn more about the real reason, watch this talk by radiologist David Ayoub: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646. Hard to believe? Verify the sources, they check out. Welcome to the real world.
Someone with his bio has studied GR, and no doubt he did apply GR as part of his research. I think you make the basic error of equating theory (GR in this case) with truth. And hence any criticism of GR as being somehow suspect. Any theory, including GR, must withstand experimental tests You may be surprised to learn that there is actually quite a bit of experimental evidence that is in conflict with relativity, even down to basic light-speed invariance measurements. For an example, take a look at what Michelson and Moreley actually reported. You'll find that they found a small but experimentally very significant anisotropy.
Anyhow, cosmological observations also run into conflict with relativity. That's why the whole field of cosmology is so controversial: cosmology as such is not that relevant, but physics certainly is.
Each vote would have to be individually coerced or bought, though. And it would have to be done in a fairly overt manner. That is already a large gain over what exists: a system that can be corrupted centrally and covertly, at the polling stations or the central counting machines.
Corruption can be minimized by placing high sanctions on vote buying, awarding reasonable rewards for turning in people involved in vote corruption, having under cover agents solicit vote bribes, and so on. It is not much different than combatting extortion rackets or drug dealing: it cannot be wholly prevented, but it can be minimized.
Think again. That's where the unique ID per vote helps. Instead of attaching the identity of the voter to the vote, each voter gets a unique anonymous ID number. An easy way to get a unique ID is to use a true random number generator and spit out sufficient bits to make the chance of collisions negligible.
Or you can use something a little more advanced that is still anonymous, but removes any chance of collisions between voters and subsequent elections, e.g. have the machine generate a true random number, but check internally for collisions, and then append unique ID numbers issued per machine and election. That narrows the vote down to the machine, but not the voter.
Of course, care should be taken that whatever is stored per vote can never be used to reconstruct who submitted the vote. For example, a vote sequence number could be correlated to a voter by having a hidden camera at the polling station. But that is something that all kinds of voting mechanisms should avoid, which is yet another reason why it is unacceptable to have closed-source voting machines.
It is not hard to make a voter-verifiable paper-trail voting system. Publish a database of election results that includes a unique ID generated by the voting machine for each vote. Also print that ID on a paper receipt that the voter can take home after voting. Then the voter can verify via the internet if the vote was tallied with the right party/candidate. And it will also be possible to verify the totals by downloading the full database and doing the sums yourself.
On the same paper receipt, the candidate/party that was voted on can be printed. But it is better to hash that information together with the unique ID and encrypt it using a private election key and then print the result on the receipt (e.g. as a hex string). This generates a voting receipt that, when decoded with the public key, is verifyably a receipt of a vote that should have been counted for that election.
To get closer to the reason you must take one step back and realize that Big Bang theories are based on general relativity theory. Relativity theory has been elevated to sacred dogma that is defended at all costs. And that includes supression of experimental evidence indicating a slightly variable and varying speed of light. See for example http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html#SEC6, or go back to what Michelson and Moreley actually published and ignore the spin that was applied later. Or look at what Dayton Miller actually measured and reported before the inquisition arrived.
The thing that makes cosmology, and particularly the corresponding astronomical observations, highly political is that any reasonable cosmological model is bound to run into conflict with relativity theory. That's why we're stuck with a patched-up ludicrous model that includes a singularity, inflation, and more ad-hoc magic required to keep the model within the bounds of relativity theory.
The Techreport also has a review up: http://techreport.com/articles.x/13176/1. Barcelona is similar to Core2, clock for clock. It has better energy efficiency and SMP scaling. But the clock frequencies will need to come up in order to beat Intel's highest clocking chips in absolute performance.
Below is a link to a video of a Russian production facility that asserts to show a flying saucer design to be commercialized soon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjBiy2nikBI. Not your usual blurry UFO video...
If you read carefully, you can see what his experiment found, and that the validity of those findings has retained support. That others tried to explain the results away is not surprising: obviously relativity has won the war of words and minds. The neutrality of the article is under dispute for a reason. One side would like you to please move along, nothing to see here, which you of course would prefer to do rather than challenge your own belief system. The other side has a word here http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm.
A further example is the Venus radar experiment, where a radar pulse was bounced off Venus and the roundtrip delay measured. You can read more about it here http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.h tml#SEC6.
No, I am talking about deviations from c markedly larger than the expected error magnitude of the instrument in question. Another series of experiments you might want to look at are those of Dayton-Miller. In particular his original papers and what the man himself thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller. There have been concerted attempts to explaining away those results by defenders of relativity theory...
A variable speed of photons means a variable speed of light. And that does violate relativity theory since one of the postulates on which the theory is based is a constant speed of light in all reference frames.
If you look into the history of light-speed measurements, you'll see that there is actually quite a bit of other evidence for a variable speed of light. The measured variations are small but well within detection capability of the experiments. The Michelson-Morley experiment, for example, found variations on the order of tens of kilometers per second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_expe riment. Somehow this has gotten lost in the mists of time; theory has prevailed over experiment while it should really be the other way around.
Of course, this implies that string theory is also falsified since it is based on and extends general relativity theory.
I don't, in general, but in the case of Intel's current quads that is basically where the design stopped: there is no special design provision for an interconnect in the package. The dual-core dies are pinned out as two loads on the same front-side bus, electrically equivalent to having each die packaged separately and sitting in a separate socket connected to the same FSB.
When you have two dies in a package that are designed to allow a close intra-package coupling by design, like the two-die core/L2 package used for the Pentium Pro when it was first released, then I agree it's valid to view the package as an integrated whole.