R
Rick Jones
In comp.sys.intel Robert Myers said:
Which, I suspect, goes a long way towards why IBM bought PSI.
rick jones
Which, I suspect, goes a long way towards why IBM bought PSI.
rick jones
R
Robert Myers
No, IBM certainly has not gone away. From the perspective of seeing
IBM as the competitor worth worrying about, Intel's stubbornness about
Itanium seems much more comprehensible.
Intel correctly saw that chip making would become prohibitively
expensive and laid a substantial bet that IBM would decide it was
better off with Intel chips in its top-of-the line merchandise than
continuing with Power as a capital and cash drain.
It's not hard to see that letting Itanium into mainframes would have
been the beginning of (yet another) end for IBM, so it's hard to see
how Intel would have won their bet on that premise unless IBM was so
weakened that it would have been an offer that IBM could not refuse.
So now Intel, the invincible giant in the eyes of so many, is now
boxed into x86, with ARM, IBM, and still AMD all around it. Just the
perfect time for government regulators to step in and limit Intel's
power to bully.
Robert.
R
Robert Myers
So much more tidy than suing them out of existence, which is a
perfectly legal anti-competitive tactic.
Robert.
R
Robert Myers
Give it a rest, Yousuf. Intel's architecture didn't spawn anything.
I'm tired of your trash talk.
Robert.
R
Robert Myers
Dr. Myers to you, whoever you are. No defense of Intel, just a
condemnation of business by litigation.
Robert.
R
Robert Myers
May I see your God credentials, please? Or are you totally
unacquainted with scripture?
Robert.
Y
Yousuf Khan
And if you replace the word "Intel" with "Microsoft" in all of those
cases, he'll be in the exact opposite corner. But of course there's no
hint of incongruity in Mr. Myers.
Yousuf Khan
R
Robert Myers
And if you replace the word "Intel" with "Microsoft" in all of those
cases, he'll be in the exact opposite corner. But of course there's no
hint of incongruity in Mr. Myers.
And Dr. Myers to you, Mr. Kahn. I'm sick of this.
The damage that Microsoft has done in the world of software is
extensive and perhaps irreversible. It is what it is. You can't
change it and neither can I.
Intel hasn't damaged anything. It gave you this little universe in
which you can be so self-righteous. Unfortunately, so did
Microsoft.
Its conceivable that, without Microsoft, we'd be in the increasingly
unattractive grasp of Steve Jobs.
What is the point of going on and on about it, especially when your
bleating provides nothing of your own insight but merely cuts and
pastes what others say and adds your moral condemnations?
On the processor end of things, we've wound up with a product that is
in some ways now so thoroughly optimized that serious people talk of
the end of computer architecture--however we got there.
On the software front, one thinks not of boring stasis but of
apocalypse. If it all just comes down to your own moral calculus, as
apparently it does, we have nothing useful to say to one another. Go
moralize to someone else, and keep your opinions about my character
to yourself.
An IBM architect asked me about the value of my grinding one of my
favorite axes on comp.arch. Needless to say, I've had some things to
say that are critical of choices that IBM has made. Those choices
have what I regard to be technical consequences that matter, and they
are being more often than not made with taxpayer dollars. I think I
get heard, and I can point to specific evidence that I get heard.
Where is the technical content in your endless moralizing? Whom are
you influencing?
Robert.
B
Bill Davidsen
??? For the most part the CPU is innocent of any virus issues, they are almostYousuf said:
all software, and almost all of that is software from one company. Compatibility
rules, AMD runs virus' as fast as Intel.
B
Bill Davidsen
If Intel tried to destroy AMD all they had to do was lower their prices for achrisv said:
year or so. There was no intent to *destroy* AMD, tricks were just a way to keep
them small without cutting the profit margin. I think you have missed the goal
of the practices.
Y
Yousuf Khan
There's a reason why in the legal system, attempted murder is just as
serious as actual murder. Just because you didn't get away with it,
shouldn't let you off the hook.
Yousuf Khan
R
Robert Myers
I don't think it's weird at all.
You speak in a peremptory fashion, as if your judgments were obvious,
indisputable, and final. Leaving our readers across the Atlantic
out, we live in a country where some huge fraction of the population
claims to be Christian. Never mind what reality those claims
correspond to, they reflect a publicly-stated allegiance to a set of
values that should have some consonance with judgments that are
obvious, indisputable, and final.
The only real content of your post is moral judgment. According to
the commonly-accepted text, moral judgment is a job to be left to
God. Either
1. You are out of line with publicly-declared allegiances to values,
or
2. You have some credentials that qualify you to judge for God.
Robert.
Y
Yousuf Khan
So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of
the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily?
Ha-ha-ha, ROLFMAO. Good one Robert, you'll convince everyone that you're
an old man going senile yet.
Yousuf Khan
R
Robert Myers
So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of
the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily?
The eighth commandment, as Lutherans and RC's count, is "Thou shalt
not bear false witness against thy neighbor." If you are going to
accuse someone of something, you'd best have God-like certainty of
your standing to do so.
In any case, the Ten Commandments are only one (albeit important)
summary of some parts of the Law. That it is only God who is fit to
judge can be found throughout scripture.
People like Chris speak as if their own judgments reflected some
obvious conclusion that anyone would draw. Leaving beliefs in the
supernatural entirely aside, Chris demonstrates over and over again
that he does not understand even the stated beliefs of our culture and
thus is an unlikely person to be proposing moral judgments (as
scripture would see it, in the place of God).
The rest of your post is just more of your abusiveness.
Robert.
R
Robert Redelmeier
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers said:
Wierder and wierder -- defending a non sequitur. Did he hit a nerve?
To recap: chrisv accused you of being an Intel fanboy.
Obviously his personal judgement which others may share.
He also accused the Intel/FTC settlement of being scummy. Ditto.
Nothing outside USENET norms. Deity nowhere claimed or involved.
-- Robert R
R
Robert Myers
The are Usenet norms? Would that include all of alt.*? I guess
pretty much anything goes.
We are off, here, into moral proclamations, a favorite pastime of
many, including you.
If you are going to make moral announcements as if you had the
standing to do so, then it stands to reason that you should exhibit
some knowledge of and consonance with the beliefs of the culture in
which you made your announcements.
No matter what you or I may personally believe, our culture at least
nominally subscribes to a set of values that proscribes, among other
things, placing oneself in the seat of judgment which, in the standard
formulation, is reserved to God. It matters not in the slightest
whether you have included any religious material in your announcement
or what you actually believe. If you presume to be a moral arbiter,
you have to establish your moral standing to *be* a moral arbiter.
You can disagree, vehemently, if you wish, with assumed cultural
norms, but you can't at the same time make your announcements as if
they would be manifestly acceptable to everyone.
Robert.
Y
Yousuf Khan
Ah, I see, so even scripture isn't above your spin-doctoring? That
commandment is quite obviously about committing perjury, and you've
turned it into "only god can know what went on"? Sorry god will never
take the witness stand, but trials are somehow still conducted and
verdicts rendered.
Get over it, Intel was found guilty by literally every authority who has
judged them so far. Not even god can disagree with that.
Yousuf Khan
R
Robert Myers
E-mail me privately, and I will show you the catechism. It isn't
about only God can know what went on. It's about defaming others
falsely, something you do regularly.
You don't understand how consent decrees work and you never will.
You're hopeless. Signing a consent agreement almost never involves an
admission of guilt. A "finding" of guilt requires a criminal
proceeding and a verdict. What you are engaged in here is corporate
defamation, a tort, for which you could be sued.
Robert.
Y
Yousuf Khan
Circular logic, I corrected you by saying it's about perjury and you
agree with it, without admitting it. Is that your consent decree?
You mean god is gonna sue me?
Yousuf Khan
R
Robert Myers
Circular logic, I corrected you by saying it's about perjury and you
agree with it, without admitting it. Is that your consent decree?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
"The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our
relations with others."
Nothing about swearing. Nothing about perjury. We have not
agreed. You have said that Intel was "found guilty." It wasn't.
You have misrepresented the truth regarding Intel.
Luther's Small Catechism goes much further in interpreting the Eighth
Commandment as condemning the kind of behavior you regularly
indulge. I'm sure I could find something similar in the Institutes
of Religion (Calvin), with which I am much less familiar.
None of this has anything to do with circular logic. You set yourself
up as a moral judge, made false statements regarding Intel, and thus
condemned yourself.
You could plausibly argue that scripture and its normative
interpreters are no longer relevant to a discussion of moral
discourse, but that would be your only recourse.
Robert.