AMD releases dual-core server chips (News.com) [LWN.net]

AMD releases dual-core server chips (News.com)

Posted Apr 21, 2005 21:02 UTC (Thu) by Hariko (guest, #4064) [Link]

You are quite a thinker, aren't you?

AMD releases dual-core server chips (News.com)

Posted Apr 21, 2005 22:29 UTC (Thu) by hmmm (guest, #28931) [Link]

Is AMD really any different than Intel?

If AMD achieves market dominance how do you think they would behave?

I don't trust any corporation, and I try not to anthropomorphize them. They are usually run my wealthy executives who probably read Forbes, CNN Money, or other similar propoganda, which influences their decisions.

I don't trust anyone who acts based purely on financial data or for the sole purpose of making more money. I assume they conveniently forget about the consequences of their actions. Plus their perspective is very different than the average working-class citizen. I bet they rarely, if ever, put themselves in their employees' shoes or think how their decisions will affect other peoples' lives.

AMD releases dual-core server chips (News.com)

Posted Apr 21, 2005 23:58 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

you do anthropomorphize them, you consider all companies and everyone who runs them inherently evil.

you need to be aware of your own bias, not claim that you don't have one.

AMD releases dual-core server chips (News.com)

Posted Apr 22, 2005 9:58 UTC (Fri) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]

dlang, you should read better what hmmm has realy written.

AMD releases dual-core server chips (News.com)

Posted Apr 22, 2005 10:22 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

You do anthropomorphize them, you consider all companies and everyone who runs them inherently evil.

Nah. Not evil. Schizophrenic. And that's understandable - it can not be ever changed. It's in corporations nature, after all. Thus when any corporation is acting as "good citizen" (like IBM is doing now) it's time to extort papers from them to be used when (not if but when!) the same corporation with switch to the "evil size".

Business's Prime Directive

Posted Apr 22, 2005 1:01 UTC (Fri) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

I don't trust anyone who acts based purely on financial data or for the sole purpose of making more money

Remember, in the U.S. at any rate, public stock corporations are required by law to make the most money for their shareholders.

Of course, this isn't the case for partnerships, closely-held corporations, and so forth. But it explains a lot of the U.S.'s economy. :-(

Business's Prime Directive

Posted May 9, 2005 13:51 UTC (Mon) by geripi (guest, #29822) [Link]

Most people see capitalism and a free market as being equivalent. That is not the case.
Capitalism is an ideology according to which the individuals of an economy on average gain most if there is no regulation of prices. Therefore the USA for example is NO pure capitalistic economy (otherwise microsoft would not be a convicted monopolist because there would not have been a trial).
The companies however have to act as the free market (which exists everywhere where there is no monopoly) demands, hence they have to make profit. This is not inherently bad (because not making profit means the product is worth less then the cost of producing it - so better not produce it).
What the government should do (and mostly doesn't) is, to provide a framework for a free market which aligns the interest of each company (to make a profit) with the interest of the community of individuals (to gain a higher standard of living).

For example if a car drives by your house, this car does not pay you directly for reducing your standard of living (if 50000 cars a day pass your house you will see why this has something to do with economy, because then your house will be worth zero if you wanted to sell it).
This is a situation where someone else is living on your expense. If a tax for each travelled mile was imposed on each car, you would be compensated in 2 ways: 1st less cars would go by, 2nd you would have to pay less tax at an other location (for example income).