The Athalon64 days where their peak oil.

Not only did they have chips that were faster, lower powered, but also had 64bit support well before Intel. (granted way before any useful purpose of 64bit really)

Then Intel came out with Core 2 Duo, which beat them in every category, to which AMD had no answer, then Intel refined the design even better, to which AMD again had really nothing, and it has been that way ever since.

They should not have become a whole hog builder. Margins suck. They would have been a Chinese company by now should they have done that.
They could not have done the Android thing, they lack embedded designs.

I agree, their attempted emulation of Intel was doomed.

As for Apple, they sell software and a brand, neither of which AMD has. The only reason Apple has done as well as they have, is that they built their branding to be expensive (more less). They were also positioned well for innovations with the iPod/iPhone/iPad because their closed source software makes integration easy, and by locking more and more in, you expand you market by force (literately).

They should have done a lot of things. However if they wanted to be really underhanded and sneaky, they should have focused efforts server side, which all the afore mentioned devices require to be connected to, gain significant market share, then create some technology that locks say certain devices using said technology built by AMD into their supporting server structure which is now dominated everywhere. It could even be something say less underhanded, where it just works better, or faster, or whatever (i.e. not true lock in like apple) to promote their other products, and even licencing the tech for others to use, and make money on every other device using their licensing fees etc...

Then there is their whole video division. Another strategic decision could be to really take a stab at destroying nVIDIA, and once gone when you are the only game in town making video solutions, then repeat the above but leveraging your video technology which is now the dominate market factor, and again licencing etc...

Anyway they have some outs. But yes, they have to get out of the be like Intel mindset. You're not going to out Intel, Intel. At least not until they get some sort of advantage which they currently do not.

While I agree in part, they have a few outs.

One thing I don't understand about the post is the "High-Density" bit. I am not sure if that is some techno babble for some super duper specialized server construct, however sever chips have been one of the few places AMD has excelled in the last number of years. Another place they do well is the budget segment where cost is more of an feature than actual processing speed. The difficulty with that segment is that the margins are likely very low, so you have to make up with a lot of volume, and you have newer technologies such as smartphones, tablets, etc... cutting into the market (i.e. why do I need a low end PC when I have other devices already that can do that role adequately).

Lastly, one of their saving graces was the purchase of ATI, and having a video arm of business. While I don't think it has worked out exactly as planned so far, the integration of CPU and GPU hasn't really given them the competitive advantage they were trying to get, there are still gains there to be made down the road should they stay the course and get some actual R&D done. Still they maintain pretty much a duopoly with nVIDIA as the only game in town for video technology.

That said I've never bought a AMD CPU. As an enthusiast it hasn't really made any sense since the Althon64 days (their last good chip). However, I have always gone with ATI/AMD video cards.

They should build to their strengths, and not try to be everything to everyone. They make the mistake to try and emulate and compete with Intel on everything. Intel can do R&D on a lot of stuff that ends up being complete flops and not worry as they have the market and the capitol to do it. The Atom for example. Not low enough power for embedded designs like ARM, and not powerful enough for anything worthwhile. A non-existent market so far as I am concerned. AMD did their own version of that... why? AMD dabbled in MB design, bet never really kept at it to really make anything of it (nforce chipset for example).

Anyway there aren't many companies that have not only one but TWO duopolies (CPU & GPU), so it is really hard to say they are out of options. Strategically they were positioned a bit less well than Intel to weather the emergence of newer technologies supported by embedded chips. However on the flip side of that coin, while it may have hurt their low end/low margin business, all those embedded devices now more numerous than ever before, all need to connect to infrastructure than is invariably run by servers, to which they do supply the lion's share of more profitable chips, so on balance shouldn't hurt as much as you might think... long term as those services tend to have upgrade cycles less than that of consumer products, but eventually they all need support.

So if they focus on server technology (which apparently they tried, failed, and are apparently giving up which seems short sighted), and expanding on their video technology, while pursuing R&D projects into core technologies (no pun intended! :) they should be fine. If they keep hemorrhaging capitol however they may eventually need to find some money somehow in the shorter term,.. However again with their position, investors should be not that hard to find, particularly if they show they have a solid strategic plan, and are not just flailing about in all directions trying to copy whatever Intel does... You're not going to beat Intel in being like Intel in short.

Two things:

1) If your company is only making a profit of 2.2 million, and your compensation is approximately half of that, it is way too much. For starters, more than that should be getting reinvented into the company for growth, not crippling your own company so you can have a fancy car and house.

2) He started the company. No idea if it is public or not, but either way, the guys wealth is likely very much tied more to the valuation of the company, not what he takes home in salary. That is why you see CEO's with salaries of 1$. It isn't that they are altruists, it is that their salary is rather meaningless when compared to compensation due to stock, or by ownership. By cutting his salary to what might be considered a "normal" wage, he does two things, one is a larger amount can be investment into growth, and growth makes him more money in the long run anyway, and two as a "stunt" his company (which I have never heard of) gets a ton of free positive advertising which would have probably cost more than that anyway, AND if the company was private and thinking about going public you have a situation where you are getting your brand out and at the same time reassuring potential investors that here is a company that is serious about taking it to the next level and growing and generating profits, rather than just another being led by a CEO trying to rob it blind before moving on (i.e. personally vested interest)...

So the moral right thing, and all that aside, it actually just makes a lot of business sense. He also probably saves a killing on his personal taxes this way...

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

Commit your taxes to memory twisted mentat!

I hate "studies" like this that make unwarranted assumptions.

They are trying to draw a conclusion of the cognitive effects of cannabis based on access to the drug and graduation which is BS.

A much more likelier conclusions is that the type of people to seek out and gain access to cannabis are more prone to screwing off and not studying and applying themselves properly rather than some ill conceived idea of reduced mental capacity.

I've gone to school with enough pot heads to know that they are not stupid. Some lack motivation perhaps. You could look at the number of people that booze it up too much in school also and party themselves out of a degree. Doesn't mean that alcohol somehow diminished their mental faculties...

Most phone passwords are terrible anyway.

A number of years ago I was at a stag party where we rented a cabin. One of the previous occupants left her wallet with her iPhone in it. One I the guys as a lark tried to "hack" her iPhone. He tried 1,2,3,4 and that didn't work. He then looked in her wallet, found her driver's licence with her birthday in it, and entered MMYY. Click. Two very lazy attempts and we had access.

In this case we called her mom from her contact list, and got her daughters address and mailed her phone back to her... but not before the guys took a lot of funny pictures first... :)

To "hack" came from the writing world and sitting down on a typewriter and just banging something out quickly without a lot of preparation. Later it was borrowed by the computer world to mean a quickly done, solution (usually code) to an immediate problem.

Had any effort taken place to "hack" the school computer it might be though of as such, however simply knowing the correct password because the teacher didn't really keep it a secret isn't much of a hack.

There used to be a distinction between crack and hack, typically based on the purposes of the actions. One was the freedom of information and access for all, the other more nefarious.

I'm sure there is a "life hack" for that...

One of my pet peeves is the overuse of the word "hacking" or "hack" in contexts that doesn't make sense or are just incorrect.

In this case, there was no hacking involved. He knew the password and used it. Unauthorized access isn't hacking. Then again people with a bias or agenda will use terms for impact, just like "theft" and "stealing" when used in context of copyright infringement.

To me, when people do that with words, they are just explaining to people either A) how biased they are, or B) how little they understand the subject at hand. Either way, not worth reading or listening to.

Again just speculation, but it could be that because China has their Internet so locked down for censorship, with their Great Firewall, that the ranges of discoverable IP addresses outside of it are manipulated causing it to look that way. I barely have a working understanding of how it all works anyway. However I do find it hard to believe that a nation particularly one as large as China would bother with this kind of low level tomfoolery (i.e. It doesn't seem all that targeted).

Then again it could be a very small subset within the Chinese government working without much oversight and without a lot of outside knowledge (i.e. within the larger Chinese government organization). Such as the revelations of Snowden, how many within the US government were really all that privy to what the CIA was actually doing...

That all these "Chinese Cyber Attacks" are in actuality more due to the fact that most of the versions of Windows in China are pirated and unpatched. This would make them the biggest target for the creation of zombie botnets which can be controlled by anyone really for whatever nefarious purposes, such as DOSS attacks on whoever. The Russians seem to have the most of those types of individuals out there, so it is more likely individual or groups or Russian hackers, owning Chinese botnets and using them to try and extort money, or for just lulz.

Why would China not respond to that? Firstly because it is beneath them. Secondly, that would be admitting to the US that they are probably in major breach of trade violations regarding IP, Copyright, etc... more so than already. That they would at least have to try and look at doing something about it, which would be crippling and such a large amount of money that I hesitate to even take a stab at how much that might be, and the affect that would have on the Chinese economy and technological innovation. Think about how many copies of Windows might be running in China, that are pirated, and if all of them had to pay, even the discounted foreign rate MS might charge.

That could also be about a billion unpatched versions of Zombie XP running DOSS attacks as part of a huge Botnet and the only reason it originates from China is the fact that everyone uses pirated unpatched versions of OS there. Just speculating, but that would make sense. Not saying that is isn't a Chinese directed botnet, but it may not be the national government.

FOI abuses happen all the time. I get them. There are ways to sometime turn them down depending on the situation. However usually you still have to go through all the motions, do a ton of work, and waste a lot of time. From my experience, if this kid were really smart he would have not only did an FOI for the questions, but for the ANSWERS as well...

Even if the answers do not exist as records, in many cases they would be obligated to actually come up with them. I do analysis all the time for questions posed in FOI requests which I like to call working as a free consultant for the public... I mean why hire some consulting firm, when you can just get some poor jerk to do it as part of an FOI request... Not that I am bitter or anything.

If their FOI requests are like ours, probably not. There are strict rules one has to follow including time frames. Provided he did the request enough in advance, failure to produce the results within a very specific allotted amount of time could have big repercussions.

"A side assumption, equally optimistic, is that managers have enough savvy to tell whether displaced employees have done a good job documenting the work they do, or are just having them on."

This is the real issue. As mentioned previously, the reason this all exists is short sighted CEO's ruining everything for gains to hit performance measures and/or bonuses.

I tried to explain this to someone once in the context of where I work and my job. Without trying to sound prideful, I know more, do more, and am capable of more than anyone in my organization at doing what I do. Now that is in the context of my small piece of the puzzle of our organization. That said, EVERYONE is replaceable, myself included. Would the new person coming is do a good a job? No. Would the business suffer as a result? Absolutely. It would probably take a sufficiently trained and educated individual, who has some experience doing what I do probably about at least 5 years of employment to get to a level where I've been for years. During that time period, things would go to hell.

However, you are assuming that management really cares. They do not. Not about the business, and not about you. There are exceptions, however generally speaking this seems more par for the course. Three things: One is that so long as management meets whatever performance measures they need to hit in order to fulfill whatever employment obligations they have the rest doesn't matter. If that involves getting rid of you and getting someone 20k cheaper to meet some quota their manger gave them, then so be it. Two is so long as they can get their bonus or or their measures they will use this to advance their own job somewhere else, the faster the better. Three is none of them are around in the management position long enough before moving on to the next to really see any of the negative repercussions of their decisions and how that affects business. By the time it does, they have handed that "portfolio" of problems off to another manager, and is now their boss, and what are they going to do, blame the guy farther up the food chain from them? Not a way to advance very far in management.

So while some people may think they're irreplaceable, they are making the incorrect assumption that management really gives a shit about the business or what will happen should you leave. About the only time this will come into play (likely after the fact), is if it PERSONALLY impacts them as a manager (i.e. their ass is on the line).

So I guess what I am saying is it really isn't so much if the managers have enough savvy, it is if they actually care at all. So long as they get paid, their advancement assured, most probably don't. Depressingly sad I know, but true. That said there are exceptions, however likely too few to really make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

Yes I thought this was the prevailing understanding. 150 years is nothing but a blink of the eye for evolution, particularly when you consider human lifespan. So I would probably argue that it has very little if anything to do with it.

Over the last several hundred years most humans, particularly Europeans have increased in average height. Our ancestors even from the the age of enlightenment back to the dark ages, and into the classical ages, were down right short in comparison. This has less to do with breeding and survival, than it does with advances in food production, health, medicine, diet, longevity, and likely a bevvy of other factors independent of evolution.

As to why, the Dutch in particular have increased more, or why perhaps one part of the world has advanced more than other, might be up for some debate. It could be that the afore mentioned factors were more prevalent, or happened earlier, or have been around longer, it could be that some are just more genetically predisposed to height, and the region is only a factor of locally mixing of similar genetic makeup, environmental factors may also come into play.

What I do know, is that evolution is not playing a significant role in this regard as the time horizon is much to small, particularly in modern times with current human lifespans in the last 150 years.

This. I see commercial trucking becoming autonomous way before personal transportation at any real scale. It is the long highway trips that is easy to automate. Once you get into a city or the like, you will get into more difficulty. I see companies opening up off-highway just outside of urban areas warehouses where automated trucks go from A to B. Getting it from the large warehouse and into the urban areas will probably still involve the short haul human truckers.

On the positive side, the volume won't decrease, and in fact this efficiency may increase volume, requiring more short haul truckers which may at least offset some of the possible disruption, at least initially.