Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

AMD To Shed 10% of Its Workforce

Posted by kdawson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:53 PM
from the hitting-the-streets dept.
stress_life writes "Recent rumors about AMD firing 5% of its workforce proved to be understated. AMD just announced that the company is going to deliver pink slips to 1600-1700 workers, or around 10% of its employees. AMD needs revenue of $2 billion per quarter, but Q1'08 is expected to come in around $1.5 billion. These firings have to be complete by Q3'08, the quarter by which Hector Ruiz promised to be profitable." We most recently discussed AMD's struggles in February.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Ask Slashdot: Is AMD Dead Yet? 467 comments
TheProcess writes "Back in February 2003, IBM predicted that AMD would be dead in 5 years (original article here), with IBM and Intel the only remaining players in the chip market. Well, 5 years have passed and AMD is still alive. However, its finances and stock price have taken a serious beating over the last year. AMD was once a darling in this community — the plucky, up-and-coming challenger to the Intel behemoth. Will AMD still be here in 5 years? Can they pose a credible competitive threat to Intel's dominance? Do they still have superior but unappreciated technology? Or are they finally old hat? Can they really recover?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • And if... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @12:55PM (#23002900)
    AMD dies, then Intel will jack their rates up about double.

    We saw something like this with Blu-Ray when HDDVD was announced to be dead.

    And Via.. Well, they're VIA. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
    • Re:And if... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wattrlz (1162603) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @12:57PM (#23002936)
      +1 apropos for the quote on the bottom of the page.

      The real value of KDE is that they inspired and push the development of GNOME :-) -- #Debian
    • Re: And if... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:02PM (#23003016)

      AMD dies, then Intel will jack their rates up about double.
      Of course. But we've seen AMD "lose" the CPU war before, and recover. Hopefully that will happen again.

      Too bad about the layoffs, though. I think this is going to get worse (across the whole economy) before it gets better. Business is so slow that my state's tax revenues have plummeted.
      • Re: And if... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:07PM (#23003080) Journal
        The problem this time is that they seem to be failing both sales-wise and technically. As much as I hate Intel, you have to admit, when you look at the product lines, and what's coming down the pipe in the next year or two, Intel has a pretty major advantage over AMD.

        I think there is a risk over the next five years of Intel again gaining monopoly or near-monopoly status in the x86 world (or whatever precisely it has morphed into now).
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:41PM (#23003572)
          We don't care about suppliers of proprietary solutions because we have OpenSparc. We wouldn't run an open source OS on closed source hardware and firmware.

          http://www.opensparc.net/ [opensparc.net]

        • Never. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:01PM (#23003862)
          There is yet one dwarf in Moria who still buys AMD.

          Seriously, though, I realize I'm a bloody hypocrite for laughing at Mac fanboys whilst being an AMD fanboy, but I love AMD. I want to do things illegal in Texas to my Opteron.

          I also realize I'm partially moronic for having brand loyalty in this day and age - but I've never had a problem with any AMD chip. They just work. Perfectly.

          So the rest of you Slashdotters go ahead with your 'logic' and 'benchmarks'. I'll keep AMD afloat so you can enjoy competitively priced Intel chips. :P
        • AMD isn't comatose (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jmichaelg (148257) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:10PM (#23003940)
          AMD's product line can't beat Intel right now but they started out that way and managed anyway. They had gotten along quite well selling a second-rate cpu that was good enough for a lot of applications whereas Intel was always pushing the performance envelope and charging accordingly.

          When the Athlon came along, I think AMD was as surprised as the market was that Intel couldn't compete technically. Those days are gone, at least for awhile, and AMD is back where they started. There'll always be a market for a cheap cpu that does the job.
            • by Slime-dogg (120473) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @04:16PM (#23005500) Journal
              IIRC, Intel took a gamble where AMD assumed far less risk, and that gamble did not pan out. Pentium 4 died, while AMD's Athlon was putting up numbers on par or better. If Intel had continued on in the same vein as the pentium 3 (which they ended up doing after the revelation that P4 was not happening), then AMD would still have been second in performance. Both companies have a place in the market. One just happened to do something stupid, the other just kept plodding along as usual.
        • Re: And if... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Znork (31774) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:32PM (#23004196)
          Intel has a pretty major advantage over AMD.

          Measured by performance, yes. But then, I haven't based CPU purchases on performance since I was a teenager and computers had single-digit MHz's. Over time you end up with far more computing power if you buy best price/performance more often and every time, instead of spending the premium for higher end on more rarely occuring purchases.

          I think there is a risk over the next five years of Intel again gaining monopoly or near-monopoly status

          I doubt it. It's not a new situation, and as long as AMD can keep delivering better price/performance they will retain significant marketshare. If they fail at that tho, or if Intel lowers prices... but then again, Intel is too fond of charging what the market will bear, so that would be unlikely.
        • Re: And if... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:41PM (#23004314)
          Reducing your workforce when your problems are based on Sales and Technical issues is a stupid move. Because those are some of the major areas which need people to get the product back on par.

          Massive Layoffs are usually bad business decisions.
          1. You reduce people who make your products better.

          2. When/if you do start growing you need new people back, and then there is the turn over cost to take account of.

          3. You in the short term raise your profits but don't fix the problem of the declining profits. The people on Top are Fat and Happy because they see the big numbers. But by not fixing the underlining problems The next quarter or fisical year the problem will reoccure again.

          4. Layoffs effect the moral of those who are hired. Causeing them to spend more time and effort in either A. Politicking themselfs to not get laied off. B. Spenind time to find a new job. Niether of these means they are working harder at their actually jobs.

          5. Ex Employees go work for the competition with their own Intelectual Property with them.

          6. For big companies like AMD Layoffs effect the local economies of the areas. Which will normally cause a raise in taxes on the local companies (Including AMD) where if they were a big employeer then they may have tax breaks to incorage the company to attract people and businesses in the town.

          7. Any slowdowns in production or product releases (due to limited labor) will cause customers to switch to cometitors.

          8. Empty offices account to paying for unused property.

          9. Extra workload on existing employees may lead to increase mistakes.

          10. New Employees will be hesident in joining. Making rerecruting difficult if business does pick up.

          See the MBA program is not all about Evil.
          • Re: And if... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by aztektum (170569) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @03:32PM (#23004952)
            When Intel started its big layoff push in fall '06, they were targeting marketing, underutilized internal IT and then HR (fewer overall employees = less need for overstaffed HR). Their core engineering and production teams were barely touched.

            AMD hasn't announced where it's cutting from, but if they're smart, they're going to cut fat, not lop off their head.
          • Re: And if... (Score:5, Informative)

            by hackus (159037) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @04:21PM (#23005538) Homepage
            You forgot 11.

            AMD Executives paid themselves MASSIVELY during the quarters when AMD was doing its worst.

            http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.327/browse_thread/thread/372bff68c6244c13

            -Hack
        • by DrYak (748999) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @03:18PM (#23004762) Homepage
          AMD did well until recently because, with the Athlon 64, they managed to bring something new fresh, interesting and with good performance :
          - x86-compatible 64bits architecture, integrated memory controller, low power and thermal
          exactly at a time when intel was stuck in dead ends :
          - on one hand Itanium proved not to be the optimal way to bring 64bit to desktops and was stuck in the scientific cluster market
          - on the other hand the Pentium 4, which was the CPU equivalent of a hummer, and was unable to go above 3GHz although the NetBurst architecture was planned to reach 10GHz

          Intel had to lose time, going back to an older generation (PentiumIII-based PentiumM) and developing a decent workstation & desktop processor out of it (Core 2 was the first decent answer to Athlon 64).

          Now we are back to the statu quo. With AMD having some technologically interesting products (true quad-cores) and interesting perf/price ratio in the mid-range products, but other wise no massive advantage.
          And Intel throwing tons of resources and replaying the "Gigahertz race", except this time with the number of cores bolted to the same package, offering expensive but fast processors.

          *BUT*

          AMD could still get some advantage in the near future.

          First, the gain obtained by multiplying the number of cores will soon top (My crystal balls predict somewhere around 6-8 cores). Intel is going to hit a wall soon, just like they got stuck with their Gigahertz race.

          Second, integrated design with the memory controller on the CPU and a standard bus between the CPU and the rest of the PC seems to make a lot of sense. At least that's what Intel's engineer are thinking.
          Here again AMD has some advantages :
          They already have such an architecture since Athlon 64, the hypertransport bus has been adopted already by several other constructor for various (FPGA and other accelerators, or simply communication between multiple chipsets on motherboard with several northbridges), their socket has stabilised (thank to the compatible family AM2 => AM2+ => AM3).

          Whereas Intel will probably once again lose some time developing and perfect their Quick-Path based processors, probably changing their connector a couple of time along the way (can't technically reuse LGA775, will have to develop a new one and as usually will probably change it a couple of time before stabilising), will have to convince other constructor to adopt it (they will, of course as they are "the standard x86 cpu that every PC maker use". But it'll take some additional time), etc...

          Once again we will see a transition at Intel, during which AMD has a small advantage (smaller than with the Athlon 64, but still present).
          If they leverage their advantage well (partnerships around the HyperTransport, perhaps), they can achieve some success.

          Of course that advantage won't stay indefinitely, and after that Intel will probably be back again with big beasts. Probably by then the technology will better take advantage of bigger multicores. And they'll also have a good advantage in the GPU / GPGPU markets by then.
      • Too bad about the layoffs, though. I think this is going to get worse (across the whole economy) before it gets better. Business is so slow that my state's tax revenues have plummeted.

        People that I have talked to in the transportation business seem to think the recession already took place from around mid last year into this quarter, but now they think the economy is recovering. They are basing this on a rather dramatic falloff in freight shipments and then a recovery.

        This followed a similar pattern in the early 1990s.. that is, by the time Clinton said "It's the economy stupid", the recession was already technically over. It's just now the pundits and papers need something to scare people with to sell more punditry and their papers.
        • It's a little more complicated than that.

          For one thing, perception of the economy affects the economy - if businesses think that the economy is taking a downturn, they are likely to react accordingly. That sort of thing can actually cause or prolong a recession where there may not have been one or it may have been shorter.
          • by King_TJ (85913) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:58PM (#23003806) Homepage Journal
            I suspect we'll see the economy get a boost whenever the next person is elected President in the U.S. Traditionally, that's been the case, again due to perception much more than reality. (We like to have a scapegoat for our problems. When they're economic in nature, the President tends to be that scapegoat. The fact he's shown the door and someone new comes in is enough to make people believe things "can get better now", even if nothing has really changed yet.)

            The "trend" I've observed in the last couple years is one of businesses trying to be more efficient with the employees they keep. Instead of 3 people, they're always asking, "Can we get by with one higher-paid worker who can then be asked to do the work of those 3?" If not, then they ask "Can we do things differently so we don't need to hire a replacement for employee X who is leaving?"

            The statistics I saw published a few weeks ago bore that out. Despite the 5.9% unemployment rate shown, it also indicated average pay was UP over last quarter.
        • by dpilot (134227) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:51PM (#23003710) Homepage Journal
          Last night on NPR's Marketplace they talked about how the credit crunch was showing signs of easing.

          Only problem, none of the things that caused the credit crunch have been fixed:
          * No regulations for transparency, so you can know the real risk of the "financial product" you're buying.
          * The responsibility breakdown between loan origination and loan execution remains. (How the HECK can you get into a position to get a commission for writing a loan, with no responsibility to know that the borrower can really pay? What a job!)
          * No regulations on allowable margin, or even for margin transparency.
          - I'm sure there are more.

          Nothing has been fixed, we merely appear to have dodged THIS bullet, but the madmen are still out there with their machine guns.
            • by pwizard2 (920421) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:36PM (#23004248)

              people will not be able to save because of the Fed's efforts to prevent saving from occurring.
              Many people don't save because there is no real incentive to save anymore. These days, the average bank around me (So Cal) offers roughly 3% or less for savings accounts. CDs are slightly better, but not by much. Am I supposed to be grateful for that? (inflation aside) When I put my money in the bank, the bank makes much more off of it than I do by loaning it out to other people at prime rate or better. Why should I help banks make money in return for a pittance when my money can be put to work more effectively elsewhere?

              The only way to get ahead is to invest in appreciating assets. IRAs and 401Ks are good for supplementing a well-rounded investment portfolio, but there's no way I would stake my entire future in them alone.
                • by zubikov (1172699) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @03:25PM (#23004860)
                  People don't save because all they know is to consume. The American culture is built around debt and consumption. We are at the first point in history since 1945 where Americans have more debt than equity. I don't care if HSBC gives you 10% for your online savings account, the consumer will spend his money like there's no tomorrow.
                • by moxley (895517) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @04:00PM (#23005312)


                  No, you're wrong (especially if you're talking about America). Most people think this is how it works, but it isn't.

                  When you take ou a loan, "new money" is created as debt from that loan. Sounds ridiculous right? It is, but it's the truth.

                  I suggest that you or anyone else who is interested in this and in how the Fed operates watch these very short animated videos that will show you EXACTLY how banking in America works:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8 [youtube.com]

                  They are very interesting, there are 5 parts - watch one, you'll want to watch them all and they are very informative.

    • Re:And if... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by eebra82 (907996) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:15PM (#23003198) Homepage

      AMD dies, then Intel will jack their rates up about double.

      We saw something like this with Blu-Ray when HDDVD was announced to be dead.
      You're obviously correct that Intel would drop the fast pace a bit and increase the rates, but comparing this situation to the media disk war of HDDVD and BD is just wrong. The industry was basically waiting for a winner because two competitors on this type of market is just too much. Certainly, the industry is not waiting for AMD or Intel to die.

      On the other hand, I doubt that Intel would eliminate competition completely because there is certainly room for more than just one company. I'm not saying AMD is going to survive, but sometimes the best thing for a business is to terminate and reinstate itself.
      • Re:And if... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dpilot (134227) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:42PM (#23003600) Homepage Journal
        Please tell me about all of the successful new entries into the non-embedded CPU marketplace in the last 10 years.

        If you're working on stuff like CPUs, the semiconductor industry has positively WICKED barriers to entry.
    • by Rix (54095) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:24PM (#23003332)
      But Bluray drives dropped in price by almost half when HDDVD kicked it. They were about $250-$300 then, and are about $150 now.
    • Re:And if... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by idiotnot (302133) <sean@757.org> on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:27PM (#23003386) Journal
      AMD dies, then Intel will jack their rates up about double.

      AMD, as a company, may die. I seriously doubt their processors and GPUs will anytime soon. My guess would be either IBM or a Japanese semiconductor fab will resurrect their product line out of the smoldering crater.

      A not-so-outlandish idea, however, is Samsung. To me, Korean ownership, development, and production makes a hell of a lot of sense.
      • Re:And if... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Visaris (553352) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:23PM (#23004098) Journal
        > the covered-up TLB bug which prevents reliable virtualization

        Where is this FUD comming from? The bug was never covered up. They delayed production for an entire quarter and publicly announced why. All CPUs have errata, and AMD took a huge hit by doing the responsible thing with disclosure and a delay.

        Second of all, AMD provided a BIOS patch to motherboard makers that ships with every K10 capable board. If you want to argue the patch degrades performance or bring up the faster B3 revision, fine. However, don't imply AMD's chips can't do virtualization reliably. The patch completely fixes any chance of a crash from the TLB issue.
  • AMD and ATi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phalse phace (454635) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @12:59PM (#23002960)
    I guess AMD buying ATi didn't help things either (?).
    • Re:AMD and ATi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moderatorrater (1095745) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:12PM (#23003160)
      In the short term, it was always a bad idea and I think they knew that. ATI didn't have anything to offer against nVidia for dx10 and they wouldn't for a while. In the medium term it looked like it might start being profitable, and in the long term they were hoping to be able to start revolutionizing the video industry with tighter integration between the CPU and video card.

      Right now (heading into the medium term) it looks like they had some missteps but they're doing okay. It's still hard to tell what's going to happen long term, though. Intel's in the entrenched position since they're already the #1 video card maker because of their integrated chipsets. If ATI actually started changing the video card industry, then Intel's in a very good position to start competing with them quickly. I doubt Intel wants to start lagging behind AMD in performance again, especially with their CPUs actually beating AMDs for the first time since the original pentium came out.

      All told, buying ATI was questionable, but it's not to the point yet where I would call it either way. AMD's already come into a market dominated by another company and beat it on its own ground, I wouldn't be surprised if they can do it again.
      • Re:AMD and ATi (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:31PM (#23003442) Homepage
        In the short term, it was always a bad idea and I think they knew that. ATI didn't have anything to offer against nVidia for dx10 and they wouldn't for a while.

        As far as current products go, I think AMD was more interested in ATI's chipsets and embedded graphics, which are quite good, and help AMD build better 'platform' stories. Now they can provide a platform using mostly AMD chips, and that offers high performance, whereas before AMD made chipsets but they were generally not the best performing.

        in the long term they were hoping to be able to start revolutionizing the video industry with tighter integration between the CPU and video card.

        It's a neat idea, and there's a lot of potential there. We'll see if the potential ever becomes reality.

        If they keep shedding people, probably not would be my guess. :P
  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:10PM (#23003124)
    They can just make it up through overclocking !
  • Buggy products (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dgym (584252) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:13PM (#23003176)
    I wonder if they will be getting rid of the people who decided to release the Phenom X3s and the energy efficient Phenom X4 with the TLB bug intact? By releasing a lot of new chips at the same time, some with the fix and some without, it seems as though AMD are trying to confuse people into buying buggy chips with awful performance.

    Apparently we have to wait even longer before this mess will be cleared up. Is it any surprise that revenue is down?
  • Lay off 10%? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr.Fork (633378) <{forkmiester} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:31PM (#23003438) Homepage Journal
    I'm not an economist, but I have a good head on my shoulders and I have a masters in business. Help me understand how AMD hopes to turn around their company by laying off 10% of their staff? They're hoping the remaining 90% demoralized, repressed, deflated staff will do it? What are the chances the 10% that walk out the door may be their best and brightest and may have the answers to turn their company around?

    It drives me crazy when companies think that the only way out of their mess is to lay off the staff, when the people responsible for the mess (board of directors and executive), don't give themselves a pay cut of 10%. Chances are, knowing how US exeuctives pay themselves, it would proably equal the amount saved laying off 10% of their staff. But what do I know?
    • Re:Lay off 10%? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:46PM (#23003646)
      Well, if your revenue is down, you've got to cut costs in order to remain profitable. Since employees are by far the largest expenditure (ignoring for a second the opening of a new fab), it makes sense to cut costs there. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the last set of products were pretty underwhelming, I'm sure that there was some fat there that needed some trimming.

      That said - I agree with your feeling that executives never seem to take responsibility for screw-ups. Instead, they take million dollar golden parachutes into semi-retirement. I'd love to see an exec who says: "Wow, we stunk this year. I'm cutting my salary in half to help the company stay profitable." Or a CEO who says "Wow, we stunk these past two years. I'm obviously the wrong person to run this company, and am forfeiting all salary, bonuses and payments that were supposed to come my way." I guess that technically, the Board of Directors is supposed to do this, but that's a whole different issue.
    • Re:Lay off 10%? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dpilot (134227) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:57PM (#23003784) Homepage Journal
      IMHO here in the US we don't have real managers any more, who know their business. We have a bunch of snot-nosed hothouse MBAs who are comfortable only with spreadsheets and abstract numbers. I'm sure there are more, but it sure seems that Steve Jobs, reality distortion field aside, is the only US CEO who understands his business and can make it grow - the only CEO with a growth plan other than, "Do what we did last week, only cut costs."

      But take what you said for a moment... We need a general expectation around here: Executive suite cuts the workforce 10%, they take a 10% pay cut. They get NO credit for growing profit by shrinking the company. Rather than shrinking the company, an executive worth his pay would figure out how to turn that "idle" resource into more revenue.
    • Re:Lay off 10%? (Score:4, Informative)

      by maxume (22995) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:05PM (#23003898)
      No need to speculate, as a public company, executive compensation is public information:

      http://amd.edgarpro.com/redirect_frames.asp?filename=0001193125-08-057479.txt&filepath= [edgarpro.com]\2008\03\14\&cols=7%2C0%2C4&SortBy=receivedate&AD=D&startrec=1&res=25&pdf=0

      It looks like the executives made ~ $20 million in 2007(including option and stock grants, not just salary, also, the totals are lower than 2006).

      I think cutting 1,600 jobs is going to save a bit more than $20 million, probably more than $100 million.
    • Re:Lay off 10%? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:14PM (#23003984)
      I'm not an economist, but I have a good head on my shoulders and I have a masters in business. Help me understand how AMD hopes to turn around their company by laying off 10% of their staff?
       
      Not necessarily. There may still be some significant overlap between ATI and AMD especially in the non-R&D positions.
    • Re:Lay off 10%? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by boris111 (837756) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:34PM (#23004232)
      Really depends how they do it. If they say to every middle manager cut 10% of your staff... that's the wrong way to do it That's what 3Com did during the bubble bust (3Who? you say).

      If they strategically cut groups that are not performing (including the managers)... that's cutting the fat.
    • by snsh (968808) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:37PM (#23004260)
      Jack Welch at GE advocated the 20-70-10 principle which says to periodically purge the lowest-performing 10% of employees to keep a company healthy. First, it gets rid of nonproductive employees. Second, *not* firing the lowest 10% is bad for the morale of the top-performing 20%.
  • Shed? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tthomas48 (180798) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:35PM (#23003506) Homepage
    They're firing 10% of their workforce. Not "shedding" them. Is "lay off" not enough of a euphemism? Now we're going to use "shed"?
    • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:40PM (#23003560) Homepage
      Depending on the jurisdiction, "laying off" someone is different legally from "firing" them. Where I live, when you fire someone, you have to do it for cause, but you don't have to give notice or pay in lieu of notice; When you lay someone off, you can do it for any reason (or no reason), but you have to give notice or pay in lieu of notice.
      • Yep (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @03:54PM (#23005240)
        Here at the state university I work for, it is two very different things.

        Laid off means that the university just didn't need your specific job anymore, or doesn't have the money to pay you. You get a severance package and other benefits. For example should the department that laid you off open the same (or similar) job within a year, it is automatically yours if you want it. Also you get priority for getting interviews for other jobs on campus. More or less a layoff means "Sorry, we'd like to keep you, but we just can't." You are, of course, eligible for rehire if laid off.

        Being fired means you fucked up. It isn't easy to fire someone, there has to be documentation supporting it and such. When you get fired you don't get anything in parting. You are just out the door, and they are going to hire someone else to do your job. You aren't eligible to be rehired.

        So yes, in many cases it can be very different.
  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @01:44PM (#23003632)

    "Dell Job Cuts to Top 8,800 as U.S. Spending Slows" (Dude! You're getting a pink slip!)
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aEO1GX_CC.8U&refer=u [bloomberg.com]...

    "Google DoubleClick cuts 300 jobs"
    http://www.newsoxy.com/google_doubleclick_cuts_300_jobs/article10671.htm [newsoxy.com]

    "Motorola to lay off 2,600 workers"
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-motorola-8k-jobcuts-motap [chicagotribune.com]...

    "Chrysler Slashing Tech Jobs - The latest cutbacks affect 400 technology workers"
    http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=1095 [thecarconnection.com]

    In other news, according to the NYT:

    > The economy shed 80,000 jobs in March, the third consecutive month of rising unemployment, presenting a stark sign that the country may already be in a recession.

    > The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.1 percent from 4.8 percent, its highest level since the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in September 2005.

    > The downturn has even come to San Francisco, where highly trained workers with elite degrees flock to work for some of the world's biggest technology companies. CNet Networks, the online media giant, laid off 10 percent of its staff -- about 120 workers -- this year in an effort to increase profitability and its share price. Yahoo, the search engine company, said it would cut its work force by 1,000.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/business/04cnd-econ.html?em&ex=1207540800&en=c1de4fb13c4ec4bd&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]
  • Apple and AMD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chrisgeleven (514645) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:53PM (#23004450) Homepage
    I remember when Apple first switched to x86 a few years ago and everyone was screaming about them picking Intel over AMD. Apple's response was that based on Intel's roadmap, they were the better choice.

    The past few years has certainly vindicated Apple on that regard. They absolutely made the right choice.
        • by turgid (580780) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @02:56PM (#23004476) Journal

          Do you know how to read? Read some books about CPU design. Then read some prices.

          The Opteron (Athlon/Phenom) has the better interconnect, and came out 5 years ago. Intel *might* be bringing out a competitor this year. Or maybe next,

          AMD processors scale, since you get double the memory bandwidth with double the processors in a system. Intel's are still choking on a 1980's vintage front side bus. Back in the 90's, AMD had a cross-bar switch. Now they have NUMA.

          From what I can see [scan.co.uk], a Q6600 is 2.4HGz. Mind you, it has 8MB of cache, which helps it along quite a bit, but only if you have one of them in a system.

          Would a dual Q660 beat a dual Phenom 9850? OK, it will be called an "Opteron" when it's available next month.

          Of course, intel would really like you to buy itanic for multiprocessor systems.

          Years of experience with intel, AMD and UltraSPARC systems have taught me that intel processors look and feel impressive on single-user single-tasking jobs. When you add tasks and users, the performance falls away.

          But, hey, intel have the brand name and the catchy adverts.

          • Re:1929 (Score:4, Insightful)

            by javiercero (518708) on Tuesday April 08 2008, @03:09PM (#23004632)
            Yes, indeed the new deal did nothing to rebuilt the US of A and its production infrastructure to the point that it could out produce the 3 power of the axis combined.

            In fact, FDR's plans were so catastrophic that he was elected "only" 3 times, and people cried in the streets when the guy crooked.

            Sometimes, the ignorance of the American populace as illustrated by the anonymous coward above astounds me. The lemming attitude that makes idiots like these proactively handicap their own interests astounds me.

            So let me get this straight, one of the few economic policies with a proven record of success (the new deal for example) are now framed as toxic. Whereas the insane policies that led to the gilded age, the great depression, the crash of the late 80s, the recession of the early 90s, and the current credit crunch... all those things are now gospel. Wow!

            No wonder that capitalism is about making dumb people part of their money, as there seems to be an infinite supply of dumb idiots....