I agree with your points, but lets add the following:

Someone putting up 10000 drones has to have antennas for telemetry. It is infeasible of Iran or any other likely small antagonist only capable of asymmetrical warfare to defend the antennas unless they use most of the drones for that purpose, which defeats the purpose of having so many drones, since cruise missiles (or a sat kill or 2) will knock out a significant amount of all the comm links in the first 2-5 hours. An army marches on its stomach, everything else is C&C (command and control, not the game), and C&C is relatively easy to behead in asymmetric-only warfare countries with respect to anything high tech.

And if Iran or North Korea has drones capable of acting completely autonomously AND effectively in a combat situation, what are the odds that the country they are fighting asymmetrically didn't have that capability first?

But apparently parent end user doesn't remember that Intel had a recall and replaced every CPU that an end user reported to them.

For that matter, Thomas Nicely, the guy who actually did the tracking down of the bug, not you, isn't nearly as bitter as your message makes you appear, and chided Intel for destroying the remaining known defective chips because the defect just wasn't a very big deal to anyone not doing statistical analysis or because the likelihood of anyone doing divides of values like 4195835.0/3145727.0 in floating point while playing a game, using Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, or even doing Excel was very, very low. The chance of them noticing was significantly smaller. Doesn't mean that the bug should have ever cleared validation (I have done validation for Motorola chips in my past life, so I have more than a modest knowledge of what is involved in catching things like this), but I think the anonymous coward doth protest too much. Chances are if you were one of the 1% of users who owned a Pentium of that era and were actually affected in a way that you were able to recognize, then you also knew about the recall.

If you really thought that any CPU you owned prior (or since) that time hasn't had known errors in them and yet still shipped, learn how to read publicly available erratas. Those won't scare you, though, it is usually the ones only available under NDA that tend to be the frightening ones.

And I say that as a person who has never bought an Intel CPU in a notebook computer until 2 months ago.

I am working under the assumption that English isn't your first language. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

The mobile versions (ending in T, U, M, UE, and ME) of the Intel i3 series are spec'ed to consume only 17 watts or 35 watts at full load. If you can explain to me how a mobile AMD spec'ed to consume 35-40 watts "takes up way less watts than intel", maybe I can understand your meaning of "way less" better. The 55 watt version of the i3 is intended for desktops (and the web site the GP referred to was testing the i3-3225 which is one of the desktop models, regardless of your belief otherwise), not mobile solutions, but given that people used to put 90+ watt Pentiums into notebooks, it is certainly feasible to do it if an OEM was crazy enough to think that consumers no longer care about battery life.

Regardless, the web site was also evaluating system power, which means differences in motherboard power consumption are being added on top of differences in CPU power consumption, possibly distorting any conclusions of CPU power consumption and perhaps leading your confusion.

Umm, you do realize that a "blind" taste test doesn't mean you have to poke out the eyes of the participants, right (because that would probably kill the market for scientists willing to do double-blind tests, after all)? Oh, ok, so you COULD blindfold them, but science should be fun, too!

Unless there is a significant appearance difference between the two items to be tasted that the taster might be able to use as an identification method, all that blind tasting requires is that the taster not be able to identify which is which.

Did I just hear a whooshing noise?

In the 1995, while working for Motorola, I was the assembly language geek asked to save 1 CPU cycle on a critical code loop that Sega promised a PPC console design win if we were able to succeed. The loop was only 16 lines of assembly code which their geeks felt was already maximally optimized based on their experience with an NEC chip. Later business considerations that were MGMT101 issues and not /. issues saw us lose the design win, but I was successful after about 3-4 hours (saved 2 clocks in the first 8 lines, lost one in the last 8, but a win was a win).

But even by then, anyone who spent every coding moment worrying about 2 bytes or CPU cycles in EVERY routine was a dinosaur. Spending 3-4 hours to save one clock of CPU time in a loop is rarely going to provide a meaningful ROI.

Crud, I lost a good reply to you by accidentally hitting the back button on my mouse.

Probably was tl:dr and too lazy to type it all out again so: a Pentium-M@1.83 GHz would be a 2004-era Dothan. If you think, just because it has a higher clock frequency than the 2011-era E300@1.3 GHz, it is faster than the E300 even on single threaded apps, you haven't spent enough time learning/understanding computer architecture (To approach the E300, you need a 2007/8-era Conroe-L).

Nor should you probably need to, but if I had to guess you probably aren't doing paying code development work on that machine, either, which was what this thread was talking about- not using 56K modems.

(keep your eyes open for an Asus Aspire V5-531 on sale, I got mine for $302 including sales tax in Texas. Performance-wise, it does destroy a Dothan-class CPU in every meaningful benchmark, single or multi-threaded, but I have to admit I would kill for 1920x1200 at times and that isn't going to happen at the $300 mark, you are right)

If your laptop can't handle more than 2 GB of RAM, it is so old that any $300 notebook that can handle 8 GB or more of RAM (and probably comes with 4 GB) will outperform it in every performance metric. And I just got 8 GB of low voltage DDR3-1600 cas 9 SO-DIMMS from newegg for $48. And if your DEVELOPMENT box isn't making you enough money to justify spending either of those two numbers, get out of the development business, because it should easily be paying for something 4x more expensive.

If you aren't doing development, then don't worry about it.

"The particles, which are 20 m in diameter, are asymmetric..."

Where I come from, 20 meter diameter anythings would rarely be considered particles!

I thought take-off and landing were the two phases of flight where most incidents occur because the plane is most likely to interact with the ground in an unexpected fashion at those times, given that there is little opportunity to correct. Funny that.

It isn't a Pirate Bay VPN, they are just running an ad next to it. At least that is what Torrenfreak is saying.

Soooooooo, 1847 (Mexican-American War)? Or would you include the Board of Inquiry that G. Washington initiated in 1790 to deal with a British major who was believed to have conspired with Benedict Arnold (he was convicted and hanged). Military commissions go back way before the Romans.

Mods, why was this allowed through the filters? It ain't tech, it isn't geeky in a technology sense (I will recognize there are hurricane geeks), and it is really just political trolling no matter how you look at it which I am willing to watch meaningful threads degenerate into but having it start off degenerate is a waste at every level.

Timothy, you suck for posting this.

Heh!

I don't typically mod memes, but jeesh this is once I wish I had my expired mod points back!

+1 funny, sir or madam.