AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

On Jun 5, 7:01 am, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
Robert Myers wrote in part:

Whatever fit into Mrs. M's. conception of the world would be praised.
Whatever didn't was devalued. It was a pointless, demeaning waste of
time. I don't think she came out of it any the wiser, but I did.

You won't learn anything from me,

But I already have learned things discussing with you.

and I won't learn anything from you,

Speak for yourself -- are you that closed?

because I already learned the lesson once.

What lesson? I am demonstrably not Mrs M. I do not have
her authority over you, nor her interest in teaching you.

Nor do I have any particular worldview to use as a measure.
You seem to assume I do merely because I disagree with you.
I am quite capable of questioning or supporting just about
any viewpoint. I certainly to not privilige any particular
preference I might have because that would interfere with
learning. You seem to respond more to critical questioning
than to support, so naturally the discussion migrates there.


I did not mean to imply that you were Mrs. M. It was from Mrs. M.
that I learned about the pointlessness of battling over world views.
Everyone has one. Else the information we get from our senses would
be as chaotic as the sensory information an infant receives.

"Tout ce qu'on nous enseigne est farce," frequently mistranslated from
Rimbaud's French as, "Everything we are taught is false." False is
too kind. "Everything we are taught is a joke (farce)."

As to my being closed, perhaps I am. I'm closed around a corrosive
skepticism of the kind that Rimbaud adopted. I'm as corrosively
skeptical of Marxism as I am of the reigning idolatry of capitalism.
I have a nearly religious certainty that they are all wrong, because,
like most things human, they are built around acts of faith. The
faith that people exhibit in presenting the ideas in which they have
faith would be touching if it weren't so transparently foolish and
dangerous. Or, rather, acting on faith when you think you are acting
on demonstrable fact is foolish and dangerous.

Up to a point, I enjoy kicking ideas around. When someone becomes too
persistent and too serious, though, I tire of the game. With Mrs. M,
I had no choice. Here, I do. I'm not interested in a University of
Chicago-style struggle over debating points. The people who are
really good at that have all got television or radio gigs pushing the
exact opposite of Rimbaud's conclusion: "Everything I was taught is
true."

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote in part:
"Tout ce qu'on nous enseigne est farce,"
[all we are taught is a farce]

.... y compris cette citation! [including this quote]

As to my being closed, perhaps I am. I'm closed around
a corrosive skepticism of the kind that Rimbaud adopted.

Please do not misunderstand the French. What appears
on the surface caustic is most often irony [humor].

Or, rather, acting on faith when you think you are
acting on demonstrable fact is foolish and dangerous.

Always. Extrapolations are risky. Faith by definition
is boundless, while data are always bounded.

Up to a point, I enjoy kicking ideas around. When someone becomes
too persistent and too serious, though, I tire of the game.

I try to separate content from expression[style]. To learn valuable
content, one must frequently tolerate uncomfortable expression.


-- Robert

On Jun 6, 3:33 pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
Robert Myers wrote in part: "Tout ce qu'on nous enseigne est farce,"

[all we are taught is a farce]

... y compris cette citation! [including this quote]

As to my being closed, perhaps I am. I'm closed around
a corrosive skepticism of the kind that Rimbaud adopted.

Please do not misunderstand the French. What appears
on the surface caustic is most often irony [humor].


I have more than a superficial acquaintance with the symbolists,
including Rimbaud. Rimbaud taught mostly by negative example. He
defied all expectations. If anyone ever took his own perverse advice
seriously, Rimbaud would be a good candidate as an examplar.

That is to say, it is unlikely that his intent was ironic, and it's
not a statement of the form "This statement is false." Rimbaud may
not have been the first to say such a thing, but it is not something
that "we" (those educated in the traditions of western civilization,
say) are taught.



Up to a point, I enjoy kicking ideas around. When someone becomes
too persistent and too serious, though, I tire of the game.

I try to separate content from expression[style]. To learn valuable
content, one must frequently tolerate uncomfortable expression.

I've perhaps been overly sensitized to certain kinds of rhetorical
styles. Here are some giveaways that make me lose interest in a
conversation:

Obsession with definitions and how words are commonly used.
Over-exactness about generalizations (falsification by a single
counter-example)
Falsification by way of contradiction (as if human communication were
the same as mathematics).

Who the hell cares about how you interpret "cubic dollars" or what the
AMD architect meant? Only someone who is obsessed with debating
points.

Who the hell cares if I say "Second law of entropy" instead of "second
law of thermodynamics?"

"Second law of entropy" gets 70 page hits on google, so I'm not the
first to use the phrase and, in fact, I was not thinking about
thermodynamics, which is about thermal systems in equilibrium or at
least quasi-equilibrium. I was thinking about entropy in its general
definition in statistical mechanics, as the logarithm of a volume in
phase space, and how it behaves, quasi-equilibrium or no.

Life is too short to get tangled up in things like that. It's not
merely a matter of pleasant or unpleasant. Once someone tries to drag
me off in one of those directions, I'm pretty sure that I'm not going
to get any more out of the conversation. I don't mean to be insulting
or even unpleasant. I have a style and I can't adjust it to suit
everyone.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote in part:
Rimbaud taught mostly by negative example.

Angry young man. He stopped writing at 20. Context matters.

Rimbaud may not have been the first to say such a thing,
but it is not something that "we" (those educated in the
traditions of western civilization, say) are taught.

Oh? What about Socrates: "One thing I know, is that I
know nothing."? Or the 4 million Google hits on Rimbaud?
Rather remarkable since poetry translates poorly.

Here are some giveaways that make me lose interest
in a conversation:
Over-exactness about generalizations
(falsification by a single counter-example)

This is called logic. A universal "truth" is
completely falsified by a single counterexample.

Falsification by way of contradiction (as if human
communication were the same as mathematics).

Math doesn't accept contradiction without proof.

Who the hell cares about how you interpret "cubic dollars"
or what the AMD architect meant? Only someone who is
obsessed with debating points.

When you make an argument dependant on quantity,
that quantity need to be proven.

Who the hell cares if I say "Second law of entropy"
instead of "second law of thermodynamics?"

Well, I won't repeat your "unconventional" terminology.

"Second law of entropy" gets 70 page hits on google, so
I'm not the first to use the phrase and, in fact, I was
not thinking about thermodynamics, which is about thermal
systems in equilibrium or at least quasi-equilibrium.
I was thinking about entropy in its general definition
in statistical mechanics, as the logarithm of a volume in
phase space, and how it behaves, quasi-equilibrium or no.

Well, don't use "second law" if you don't want people to infer
thermodynamics. It is very unclear how the statistical mechanics
definition advances your argument. Order there is imposed by
"microstates" whose anisentropic cost is excluded. Fine if
those microstates are covered by something else like quantum
mechanics, incomplete [open-system] otherwise (most IT).


-- Robert

"Sebastian Kaliszewski" wrote in message
...

You're piece of the work. They *can* & *do* estimate risk in their main
line
of business. Otherwise they would be dead long time ago.

much snippage.

Let me just remind folks of the Long Term Capital Management debacle, and
the more recent ones involving Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities in
which there was demonstrably a failure to correctly model the risk. In
particular, things happened which had been assumed to be impossible like
house prices actually going down or currency fluctuations in the wrong
direction, or similar things, leading to the total inability to trade
because of the inability to calculate value of certain instruments.


Sebastian Kaliszewski
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang