I own stocks in both Intel and AMD, and I've got to agree with this statement. AMD needs to hold ground between now and 1Q 2007 when it can get their 65nm and quad-core chips to the market.
OK, So let me first declare that I am a stockholder in both NVDA and AMD, and I've been mulling this over all day. Clearly by that, I agree with the nvda/amd combo. I've seen plenty articles that tout how NVDA has benefited from "neurality" between the two, but where's the neutrality? green grid? certified desktops? These AMD and NVDA have recognized each other's strengths and been building on that for awhile.
First of all, this arrangement benefits NVDA as much as AMD. How? It eliminates their main competitor. AMD will not pursue top-end graphics add-on boards as aggressively as ATI. AMD are more interested in an integrated graphics chipset for laptops, and on-die graphic chipsets for future CPU architectures. This leaves NVDA way ahead of the competition as far as top-end gaming goes, I mean who's next in line behind ATi? Matrox?
Which brings in the next point, business laptops. NVDA will make serious inroads into this market offering a capable, fully integrated cpu/graphics chipset. ATi's technology is, shall I say on shaky ground, not because it's bad.. but because ATi has never been, shall we say, completely stable. AMD could provide wonderful advances in power comsumption and chipset frequency, and refine the fabrication and device driver development process to produce a top-class product.
It will be interesting to see how much harder NVDA will have to pushthe technology to compensate for NOT having the GPU integrated onto the CPU. Obviously, the first gen of this will not be a key competitor, but three or four generations into the technology, who knows? Perhaps by this time, AMD will be ready to buy out NVDA as well.
On that note, Intel is selling off recently acquired companies to improve profitibality. They are in no position to buy NVDA.
Intel has had a hard enough time releasing hardware that works properly. Plagued with architectural problems, it seems this company is simply failing to release stable, working products on schedule. Now they are going to rush, what could be their last triumphant stand against AMD out the door in order to "beat AMD to the market?" The two do not seem to have such competive timelines for release, and Intel moving their release date ahead of schedule to create a race condition between the two companies seems foolhardy
AMD will release their products on schedule, and fully tested, and Intel likely due to political pressures will release a product hastily finished without through testing.
This is only going to lead to failure for Intel, which will lead to more political pressure, which will lead to worse products. Intel looks doomed to become the Microsoft of hardware, not getting their product functional and stable until the end of the product line in favor of marketing hype and product release deadlines.
Well, I've been mulling over replacing my work laptop with one of these. It would easily slip into a briefcase, and there is an available docking station that comes with it. You don't need to use the 4" screen or the foldout keyboard. You can slip it out and stick it into the cradle, and it's business as usual on a 20" LCD screen, ethernet and a fullsize keyboard and mouse.
When I'm done for the day, there's nothing to synch, and there's no disruption in workflow. I just pop it out and head out the door. I don't need 10 hours of battery life, in fact, only enough to use it on the train while I go from my office back home. I'll never forget a file, miss an email, etc.
The 1 lb portability, and dockstation is what makes this a very atttractive solution to me. Now I don't have to carry a laptop bag anymore, and this thing will whip out while on the go much easier than a fullsize laptop ever will. If I had a car, this would also make one of those $39 GPS receivers totally worthwhile.
They're not even saying you will buy it because it's a Sony, they're saying you'll buy it because it's a Playstation, and because of the fantastic success of the Playstation, and consumer loyalty, selling the first 5 million consoles would be possible even without any titles available. This was aimed at Microsoft, who is bragging they will have over 100 titles and available for Xbox 360 and over five million 360 consoles sold by the time the PS3 comes out.
I hope you don't mind if I actually respond to your lunacy, besides the fact you didn't respond to a single thing I said, but only extended your own attacks.
"A few years ago Republicans used to complain about things being labeled "hate speech", now they're more than happy to toss the claim around like candy in a parade"
I suppose you are referring to the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, which struck down a hate-speech ordinance in St. Paul, Minn., that banned speech that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the law imposed special prohibitions on speakers who express views on "disfavored subjects" but did not punish those speaking on behalf of favored topics.
I remember around the same time how the phrase "white devil" was exploding among black muslims, and Muslims leaders opining about the world of destruction that white man was causing the black community, and the need for groups like the black panthers to violently rise up against the white man considered "protected by the first amendment". So maybe we can all see how the slanted mirror is in effect here. I mean if you can call a pro-military website that recognizes Islamic militants as blood-thirsty fascists that are enemies of the United States as "hateful", the we need to apply to the Nation of Islam the same anti-nazi laws that apply in Germany.
try to convince people that claiming "blacks should be happy for slavery, because it allowed them to come to America",
Wow, that's a nice quote, can you please link the source? As I recall, it was the first Republican President Lincoln that used his executive powers to end slavery. And it was Republicans who were 79% in favor of the Civil Rights act of 1964, and Democrats who opposed it by 63%. Oh, and lets not forget than when Democrats tried to filibuster the bill, it was the 81% of Republicans that could have unilaterally ended the filibuster.
" I know for a fact that the proprietors requested to google news that their sites not be aggragated, because it's not news and presumably they weren't desperate for extra traffic"
You know for a fact why? Because Google issued a press release, or because the proprietor told you? Because we all know presumanbly political websites have no interest in exposure or fund raising.
Wow, that needs to be modded Insightful and Informative. You totally got me. I've been BURNED!
Then again, how could a black "house nigger" (as the "non-hate speech" LLL put it) ever hope to compare with that godly woman Hillary whom some Africans have called "the queen of the world"???
" no matter how incomparable, with one obvious characteristic in common with the target, then set the two up in their corporate media as "opponents". Like setting up Hillary Clinton with Condoleeza Rice because they're both "women in politics". That competition immediately lowers the higher stature target, and often raises the lower stature target for a bonus.
"
Yeah, that was really unfair to Condeleeza Rice, I mean one of them is a junior Senator, and the other the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is the next highest executive post next to Vice President, while Hillary ranks like #93 in the Senate.
I don't know if this has been pointed out, but Mohammed would have been collecting social security around the time his bride was starting kindergarten. I could call Mohammed a funny man for this, but a rose by any other name is still a rose. So if you think calling a pedophile a pedophile is hate speech, then feel free to call me one hateful person. I think you're just an idiot, and cannot fathom what would even compel you to defend this atrocious act.
Wait a minute, since when should a search engine have an "editorial viewpoint"?
I think YOU are the one that needs a dictionary, becuse if "employing force to suppress or remove opposing political views" isn't censorship, then I don't know what is.
"Power Line, Wonkette, Polipundit, Infoshop, and antiwar.com are indexed on Google news."
"They shouldn't be"
Well, I didn't realize I was speaking directly to the executive at Google who decided the criteria for Google News indexing. Since I've got you why you are here, what action are you taking to remove the laundry list of Democratic "hate sites"? Certainly, some of those sites you've removed may even take a militant stance against islamic oppression, but many of these democratic sites take an equally militant stance against Americans.
"Sorry, but anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is incapable of judging whether some article about Islam is "critical and frank".
Frankly, anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is incapable of rational discussions of religion or politics at all."
Do you even know what the words "critical and frank" means?
Because AT&T has no executive powers of government. Yes, they can cooperate in an investigation, but they cannot conduct an investigation, and they certainly cannot impose their will upon me. I have considerably more influence over AT&T than I do over my government, which reminds me of something President Reagan once said...
People patronize a business because they provide a product they desire, and they furnish them with funds voluntarily. People go to the government for services because there is nowhere else to go, and furnish them with funds under the threat of imprisonment. Business has historically provided for the American people in ways the government never could. The government is only good at doing what it was designed to do. Create a more perfect union between the States, establishing Justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, and providing for a common defense.
As James Madison, who wrote the Constitution once said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one...."
The government should remain restricted to their constutionally defined roles, please tell me why I should look to the government to control my access to the internet??
I'm not saying that AT&T would never share my personal information, what I'm saying is that it's a hundred times better than the government examining every packet that leaves my house and the computer that sends them on a daily basis.
Cool, apparently you are halfway to reading comprehension.
From your pasted article:
"a quarter of factories were found to present more serious problems.
These ranged from a lack of basic terms of employment and excessive hours of work to unauthorised sub-contracting, confirmed physical or sexual abuse and the existence of conditions which could lead to death or serious injury."
To your response to your article:
"Cool. That means as of 13 April, 2005 only in 40% of the factories used by Nike..."
Lst I checked, a quarter was 25% not 40%. Not that I'm a Nike fanboy (I don't own any Nike equipment or apparel) or condone sexual assault or anything, but in an annual period having a worker in a factory working an 80 hour week, someone report sexual harrassment, 'unauthorized' subcontracting (what's the problem with that one?), or having too many plugs in a receptacle isn't a horrible situation, nor does Nike deserve a diminished reputation for these things, because I hardly think they "allow" them to happen. The sexual harrassment DOES get reported, the subcontracting is "unauthorized", the hazardous conditions ARE identified (and presumably corrected).
This is my big gripe about free municipal networks, an absolute lack of privacy. I'm sure part of this EULA will include a provision that allows the government to "inspect" any computer that accesses the network for "security violations". Keep my ISP corporate, private, and for profit. I'll gladly dish out $19.95 a month for that.
I was thinking more along the lines of the same sort of attack as used on an RC 4 Stream Cipher.
"It consists of the observation that when the same secret part of the key is used with numerous different exposed values, an attacker can rederive the secret part by analyzing the initial word of the keystreams with relatively little work. This concatenation of a long term secret part with an attacker visible part is a commonly used mode of RC4, and in particular it is used in the WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) protocol, which protects many wireless networks.
It occurs to me that these codecs are probably a serious weakness to the encryption, in that they would generte very predictable patterns. Headers, synchronization and timing, dead space.. especially if the NSA has a voice print recognition algorithim to match the target. Depending on the length of the conversation, it would seem very probable that even with the key destruction, there should be enough sampling data to accurate generate a decryption key with very little effort, given the right tools and talent. Thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
I own stocks in both Intel and AMD, and I've got to agree with this statement. AMD needs to hold ground between now and 1Q 2007 when it can get their 65nm and quad-core chips to the market.
Is using the same architecture PC manufactures have been using for over 30 years. Brilliant. Apple hype never fails to amaze and bewilder me.
First of all, this arrangement benefits NVDA as much as AMD. How? It eliminates their main competitor. AMD will not pursue top-end graphics add-on boards as aggressively as ATI. AMD are more interested in an integrated graphics chipset for laptops, and on-die graphic chipsets for future CPU architectures. This leaves NVDA way ahead of the competition as far as top-end gaming goes, I mean who's next in line behind ATi? Matrox?
Which brings in the next point, business laptops. NVDA will make serious inroads into this market offering a capable, fully integrated cpu/graphics chipset. ATi's technology is, shall I say on shaky ground, not because it's bad.. but because ATi has never been, shall we say, completely stable. AMD could provide wonderful advances in power comsumption and chipset frequency, and refine the fabrication and device driver development process to produce a top-class product.
It will be interesting to see how much harder NVDA will have to pushthe technology to compensate for NOT having the GPU integrated onto the CPU. Obviously, the first gen of this will not be a key competitor, but three or four generations into the technology, who knows? Perhaps by this time, AMD will be ready to buy out NVDA as well.
On that note, Intel is selling off recently acquired companies to improve profitibality. They are in no position to buy NVDA.
This is only going to lead to failure for Intel, which will lead to more political pressure, which will lead to worse products. Intel looks doomed to become the Microsoft of hardware, not getting their product functional and stable until the end of the product line in favor of marketing hype and product release deadlines.
When I'm done for the day, there's nothing to synch, and there's no disruption in workflow. I just pop it out and head out the door. I don't need 10 hours of battery life, in fact, only enough to use it on the train while I go from my office back home. I'll never forget a file, miss an email, etc.
The 1 lb portability, and dockstation is what makes this a very atttractive solution to me. Now I don't have to carry a laptop bag anymore, and this thing will whip out while on the go much easier than a fullsize laptop ever will. If I had a car, this would also make one of those $39 GPS receivers totally worthwhile.
I think AMD should respond by benchmarking their 65nm dual core chip due out 2007 against the Intel Pentium 4.
You don't have to go to Shanghai to buy pirated movies, you can pick them up easy enough here in New York City.. three for $10.
They're not even saying you will buy it because it's a Sony, they're saying you'll buy it because it's a Playstation, and because of the fantastic success of the Playstation, and consumer loyalty, selling the first 5 million consoles would be possible even without any titles available. This was aimed at Microsoft, who is bragging they will have over 100 titles and available for Xbox 360 and over five million 360 consoles sold by the time the PS3 comes out.
"A few years ago Republicans used to complain about things being labeled "hate speech", now they're more than happy to toss the claim around like candy in a parade"
I suppose you are referring to the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, which struck down a hate-speech ordinance in St. Paul, Minn., that banned speech that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the law imposed special prohibitions on speakers who express views on "disfavored subjects" but did not punish those speaking on behalf of favored topics.
I remember around the same time how the phrase "white devil" was exploding among black muslims, and Muslims leaders opining about the world of destruction that white man was causing the black community, and the need for groups like the black panthers to violently rise up against the white man considered "protected by the first amendment". So maybe we can all see how the slanted mirror is in effect here. I mean if you can call a pro-military website that recognizes Islamic militants as blood-thirsty fascists that are enemies of the United States as "hateful", the we need to apply to the Nation of Islam the same anti-nazi laws that apply in Germany.try to convince people that claiming "blacks should be happy for slavery, because it allowed them to come to America",
Wow, that's a nice quote, can you please link the source? As I recall, it was the first Republican President Lincoln that used his executive powers to end slavery. And it was Republicans who were 79% in favor of the Civil Rights act of 1964, and Democrats who opposed it by 63%. Oh, and lets not forget than when Democrats tried to filibuster the bill, it was the 81% of Republicans that could have unilaterally ended the filibuster.
" I know for a fact that the proprietors requested to google news that their sites not be aggragated, because it's not news and presumably they weren't desperate for extra traffic"
You know for a fact why? Because Google issued a press release, or because the proprietor told you? Because we all know presumanbly political websites have no interest in exposure or fund raising.
Then again, how could a black "house nigger" (as the "non-hate speech" LLL put it) ever hope to compare with that godly woman Hillary whom some Africans have called "the queen of the world"???
Yeah, that was really unfair to Condeleeza Rice, I mean one of them is a junior Senator, and the other the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is the next highest executive post next to Vice President, while Hillary ranks like #93 in the Senate.
I don't know if this has been pointed out, but Mohammed would have been collecting social security around the time his bride was starting kindergarten. I could call Mohammed a funny man for this, but a rose by any other name is still a rose. So if you think calling a pedophile a pedophile is hate speech, then feel free to call me one hateful person. I think you're just an idiot, and cannot fathom what would even compel you to defend this atrocious act.
I think YOU are the one that needs a dictionary, becuse if "employing force to suppress or remove opposing political views" isn't censorship, then I don't know what is.
Google has announced new changes in their administration since their partnering with China. Thanks for the billion dollars Big Red!!!
"They shouldn't be"
Well, I didn't realize I was speaking directly to the executive at Google who decided the criteria for Google News indexing. Since I've got you why you are here, what action are you taking to remove the laundry list of Democratic "hate sites"? Certainly, some of those sites you've removed may even take a militant stance against islamic oppression, but many of these democratic sites take an equally militant stance against Americans.
Frankly, anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is incapable of rational discussions of religion or politics at all."
Do you even know what the words "critical and frank" means?
People patronize a business because they provide a product they desire, and they furnish them with funds voluntarily. People go to the government for services because there is nowhere else to go, and furnish them with funds under the threat of imprisonment. Business has historically provided for the American people in ways the government never could. The government is only good at doing what it was designed to do. Create a more perfect union between the States, establishing Justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, and providing for a common defense. As James Madison, who wrote the Constitution once said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one...." The government should remain restricted to their constutionally defined roles, please tell me why I should look to the government to control my access to the internet??
I'm not saying that AT&T would never share my personal information, what I'm saying is that it's a hundred times better than the government examining every packet that leaves my house and the computer that sends them on a daily basis.
Cool, apparently you are halfway to reading comprehension. From your pasted article: "a quarter of factories were found to present more serious problems. These ranged from a lack of basic terms of employment and excessive hours of work to unauthorised sub-contracting, confirmed physical or sexual abuse and the existence of conditions which could lead to death or serious injury." To your response to your article: "Cool. That means as of 13 April, 2005 only in 40% of the factories used by Nike..." Lst I checked, a quarter was 25% not 40%. Not that I'm a Nike fanboy (I don't own any Nike equipment or apparel) or condone sexual assault or anything, but in an annual period having a worker in a factory working an 80 hour week, someone report sexual harrassment, 'unauthorized' subcontracting (what's the problem with that one?), or having too many plugs in a receptacle isn't a horrible situation, nor does Nike deserve a diminished reputation for these things, because I hardly think they "allow" them to happen. The sexual harrassment DOES get reported, the subcontracting is "unauthorized", the hazardous conditions ARE identified (and presumably corrected).
This is my big gripe about free municipal networks, an absolute lack of privacy. I'm sure part of this EULA will include a provision that allows the government to "inspect" any computer that accesses the network for "security violations". Keep my ISP corporate, private, and for profit. I'll gladly dish out $19.95 a month for that.
Actually, you would probably wnt to call l33tdude.mobi
"It consists of the observation that when the same secret part of the key is used with numerous different exposed values, an attacker can rederive the secret part by analyzing the initial word of the keystreams with relatively little work. This concatenation of a long term secret part with an attacker visible part is a commonly used mode of RC4, and in particular it is used in the WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) protocol, which protects many wireless networks.
It occurs to me that these codecs are probably a serious weakness to the encryption, in that they would generte very predictable patterns. Headers, synchronization and timing, dead space.. especially if the NSA has a voice print recognition algorithim to match the target. Depending on the length of the conversation, it would seem very probable that even with the key destruction, there should be enough sampling data to accurate generate a decryption key with very little effort, given the right tools and talent. Thoughts?
Well shit on my sandwich and call it a french breakfast. Thanks for the link.
I assume the "new" ultra-low power chips the OP is talking bout are the Intel will have the L2400 running 1.6Ghz at 15W and the U1400 running 1.2 GHz ~6W http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/bod y_view_core.htm
AMD has for some time now had available a 1GHz processor running 6W, and a 1.4GHz running at 16W as part of their Geode line.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/Pro ductInformation/0,,50_2330_9863_10837,00.html
So AMD was ahead of the game on this one, but their chips are getting "consistently hotter"? I just think that comparison reeks of easily refutable fanboy dogma.