Interesting the AMD 45nm technology does not yet include High-K & Metal
Gates (HKMG), yet it uses 15-30% less power. Of course AMD does use SOI,
which Intel doesn't. So it looks like currently SOI utilizes power
better than HKMG, but AMD also plans to use HKMG in later 45nm revision.

Yousuf Khan

Under the Hood: AMD's Shanghai marks move to 45-nm node
http://eetimes.eu/semi/212002481?pgno=1

On Dec 9, 9:57*pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Interesting the AMD 45nm technology does not yet include High-K & Metal
> Gates (HKMG), yet it uses 15-30% less power. Of course AMD does use SOI,
> which Intel doesn't. So it looks like currently SOI utilizes power
> better than HKMG, but AMD also plans to use HKMG in later 45nm revision.
>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=amd

BUY!

Robert.

On Dec 15, 5:48*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s.bez_sp...@remove.that.informa.and.that.pl> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 9:57 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Interesting the AMD 45nm technology does not yet include High-K & Metal
> >> Gates (HKMG), yet it uses 15-30% less power. Of course AMD does use SOI,
> >> which Intel doesn't. So it looks like currently SOI utilizes power
> >> better than HKMG, but AMD also plans to use HKMG in later 45nm revision.
>
> >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=amd
>
> > BUY!
>
> Go away to alt.stock.advocacy, troll
>
I remember you. You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact.
Good time to move the US. The US needs more people with unjustified
self-confidence. It's done such good things for the world economy.

Robert.

On Dec 16, 9:47*am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> > On Dec 15, 5:48*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> >> Robert Myers wrote:
> >> > BUY!
> >> Go away to alt.stock.advocacy, troll
>
> > I remember you. *You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact.
> > Good time to move the US. *The US needs more people with unjustified
> > self-confidence. *It's done such good things for the world economy.
>
> Speaking of unjustified self-confidence ... go look in a mirror.
> You do not have any idea of how insulting you often are,
> and thereby prove yourself a troll.

That's unusually sloppy for you, Robert. Politeness, consideration
for others, or even an accurate self-image in interpersonal terms have
nothing to do with being right or wrong.

I have no unjustified self-confidence around people like you or the
other guy who works for people who are experts in risk management,
"expertise" of the kind that has nearly brought the world financial
order to its knees.

It's been interesting to watch the reactions of those burned in
Madoff's Ponzi scheme. They all come down to, "He didn't seem like
the sort," or "He knew all the right people."

Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal cues have
nothing to do with being right or wrong. There is right, wrong, and
don't know, the last of which is grotesquely underutizlized. A fraud
who is nice is still a fraud.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Dec 16, 9:47 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 15, 5:48 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>>>
>>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>BUY!
>>>>
>>>>Go away to alt.stock.advocacy, troll
>>
>>>I remember you. You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact.
>>>Good time to move the US. The US needs more people with unjustified
>>>self-confidence. It's done such good things for the world economy.
>>
>>Speaking of unjustified self-confidence ... go look in a mirror.
>>You do not have any idea of how insulting you often are,
>>and thereby prove yourself a troll.
>
>
> That's unusually sloppy for you, Robert. Politeness, consideration
> for others, or even an accurate self-image in interpersonal terms have
> nothing to do with being right or wrong.
>
> I have no unjustified self-confidence around people like you or the
> other guy who works for people who are experts in risk management,
> "expertise" of the kind that has nearly brought the world financial
> order to its knees.
>
> It's been interesting to watch the reactions of those burned in
> Madoff's Ponzi scheme. They all come down to, "He didn't seem like
> the sort," or "He knew all the right people."
>
> Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal cues have
> nothing to do with being right or wrong. There is right, wrong, and
> don't know, the last of which is grotesquely underutizlized. A fraud
> who is nice is still a fraud.
>
> Robert.
>
>
The Madoff affair has been quite interesting to watch. One aspect is
the evolution... did it start out legitimate and evolve over time to a
fraud, or was it a fraud from the beginning? I have read plausible
speculation that it was the former.

And how he didn't get caught? Another article speculated that many
thought he was crooked and "front running" his market making operation.
So the Wall Street types wanted to get in on it.

And the "brightest guys in the room" almost wrecked the financial system
before this, with LTCM.


del

On Dec 16, 11:37*pm, Del Cecchi` <dcecchinos...@att.net> wrote:

>
> The Madoff affair has been quite interesting to watch. *One aspect is
> the evolution... did it start out legitimate and evolve over time to a
> fraud, or was it a fraud from the beginning? *I have read plausible
> speculation that it was the former.
>
> And how he didn't get caught? *Another article speculated that many
> thought he was crooked and "front running" his market making operation.
> * So the Wall Street types wanted to get in on it.
>
> And the "brightest guys in the room" almost wrecked the financial system
> before this, with LTCM.
>
I'm sure that many frauds start out with someone thinking that they
are taking a temporary measure that they will later be able to cover.
Lawyers holding funds in trust think of the funds as a line of credit,
for example.

I think that, ultimately, the calculations are little more than a
prop. The margins are so thin that just the tiniest bit of, say,
front-running or an unexposed conflict of interest (wanting to get in
on the scam without admitting to knowing about it) can change
everything.

Robert.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in part:
> I think that, ultimately, the calculations are little more
> than a prop. The margins are so thin that just the tiniest
> bit of, say, front-running or an unexposed conflict of
> interest (wanting to get in on the scam without admitting
> to knowing about it) can change everything.

Yes ... to the advantage of the scam. Margins means levearage
works small advantages into large profits. The problem is like
in mountaineering on the backside -- how can you climb down?


-- Robert R

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in part:
> On Dec 16, 9:47*am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>> > I remember you. *You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact.
>> > Good time to move the US. *The US needs more people with unjustified
>> > self-confidence. *It's done such good things for the world economy.
>>
>> Speaking of unjustified self-confidence ... go look in a mirror.
>> You do not have any idea of how insulting you often are,
>> and thereby prove yourself a troll.
>
> That's unusually sloppy for you, Robert. Politeness,
> consideration for others, or even an accurate self-image in
> interpersonal terms have nothing to do with being right or wrong.

You are confusing politics for science. Apart from IQ, nothing you
said about Sebastian has any scientific proveability or relevance.
Your statement was political, and must be judged as such.

> I have no unjustified self-confidence around people like you
> or the other guy who works for people who are experts in risk

Why do you equate us? I pointed you to Nassim Taleb's
"Black Swans" back in May. You are ignoring data.

> Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal
> cues have nothing to do with being right or wrong.

Then why do you invoke them against Sebastian?


-- Robert R

On Dec 17, 1:54*pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>
> > Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal
> > cues have nothing to do with being right or wrong.
>
> Then why do you invoke them against Sebastian?
>
You both have chosen to make it personal. So be it. It is personal.
Nothing you can say or do at this point will make it otherwise. If
you want to continue with your personal attacks, be so pleased to do
it if you wish. If I respond in kind, congratulate yourself on how
thoroughly you have pushed my buttons, but don't bother criticizing or
correcting. I don't care what you think, and it takes every scrap of
restraint I possess not to say what I really think.

Robert.

On Dec 19, 10:17*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s.bez_sp...@remove.that.informa.and.that.pl> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > You both have chosen to make it personal. *So be it. *It is personal.
>
> Oh, so I undestand, you lack your own will. You're predetermined, you're
> not guilty, you're just pushed to trolling by evil Us.
>
You made one of the more memorably preposterous claims in my memory of
reading Usenet. Subsequent events have made the preposterousness of
your claim even more obvious. If you're going to spend the rest of
your time on Usenet trying to repair your damaged ego, there's no
real reason for me to respond to you.

If anyone should be barking, it would be the OP, because it was his
post that I mocked. You're not properly involved at all.

Robert.