Your Al Gore review made us SPeW!
And our thoughts on Intel's emerging toys biz
Letters The ultimate sign of a reporter's objectivity comes through when both conservative and liberal readers chastise her over the same story. That's what happened this week when you all dug into your humble hack for this review of Al Gore's global warming slideshow.
More impressive, however, were the set of letters comparing Intel's new "Satisfaction per Watt" - SPeW - benchmark to a female pleasure device.
We bring you both sets of comments.
It would have been nice to see the objective section of your article placed before the smart-ass "I'm so funny while I'm being snide" section. In other words, you almost lost me with your self indulgent teeny-bopper routine but I persevered until the end, where you actually write as though you have had more than a junior-high education (and mentality). Your audience (in this case me) was not amused.
sounds like you need to find on of those hummers and put it in your mouth!
Al Gore would also not have blown 300 billion and counting on a war of convenience when that money would have paid for the research, development and deployment of an energy source that would have made having a war over an obsolete energy source unnecessary.
Instead of wasting time discussing an ammendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage [talk about getting your priorities straight] he would have worked to give more people in America a stab at a decent life and because his predecessor's sound policies, he would have had the budget to actually implement it.
Now, future generations of Americans will have to pay for the incredible arrogance of a true 'Commander in Chief', a 'War President' who was too chickenshit to go to the war when he was in uniform himself.
A neutral voice would have been better to convey the message to as many people as possible. But then, there's little chance either way that enough people will want a change that's really a change from the dumb way we run the planet. Mark Eyskens once said that 'the lesson we learn from history is that we don't learn lessons from history'. We're just too dumb to change.
You live in Palo Alto and you'd never have considered voting for Gore?
If you think that being likeable is the number one priority for your political leader then please, do the rest of us a favour and don't vote, eh? There's about 120,000 Iraqis who'd still be alive today if gimps like you stayed at home.
By the sarcasm of your piece, I can see attacking the messenger not the message is about all you can muster out of your grab bag of literary pseudo hip prose. I guess living in Palo Alto among all the upper middle class whiteness can keep one out of touch with just who are the real criminals in the battle to stop carbon dioxide emissions. At least negative comments such as this means that your being read, that’s something to feel good about. On which side of the fence you sit is apparent, and will be noted by the Green Party. I suppose being on a shit list can be a claim to fame in some sectors of the corporate P.R world.
Global Warming stopped increasing in 1998.
1998 - January 0.512 C above 1960-1991 mean 2005 - January 0.502 C above 1960-1991 mean
Change - A drop of .01 Celsius
Al Gore is liar trying to con people out of their money.
Great article in your paper! (Web site, really)
Ashlee: I'm sorry you might "vote" for that cabbage. And it's not just "a few journalists" who don't think he got it right yet. There are more than a few scientists who don't agree with the ex-Veep. He's still talking down to the US public and is convienced that we can't form an independent thought without his help. Global warming is happening, however, no one can say with any certainty that "Man" is the cause of it all or even is effecting at all. Climate is just too complex. Even climatologists admit they don't fully understand it.
Not bad for Tommy Lee Jones roomate. Of course, when he discovers that even if ALL the polar ice cap melted, sea level wouldn't rise one inch (experiment, fill a glass of ice with water and watch the level as the ice melts). Personally I classify it as one of those "scary movie" films, and give it the same treatment (trash!).
If memory serves, Gore does address that point by saying much of the ice in Antarctica, for example, sits on top of a land mass today. If dumped into the ocean, it would raise the sea level.
Now, on to the vibrators.
Satisfaction per what?
A better measure has got to be Satisfaction Per Blow.
The concept - as if it really needs explaining - is that the amount of satisfaction is directly (and positively) correlated with the number of damaging blows achieved with weapon of choice (baseball bat, plank with nail in end, cattle prod, etc).
Applies equally to overheating Intel kit as it does to irritating users. If it stops complaining (talking/whining/beeping/whirring*), satisfaction is achieved.
My therapist agrees with the principle, even if they can't quite agree with the potential silencing of users involved.
*Delete as appropriate.
ACHTUNG, Copyright Verletzung!
The expression SPEW are Copyright 1992 by Hermione Jane Granger, All Frights Reserved!
Anyone using it without permission might better like the taste of flies and murky water....
So Ashley, Prepare to Croak!! =;-)....
No name supplied
"Satisfaction Per Watt"? Oh man. This reeks of panic, and a committee that really could not come up with anything better. I almost feel sorry for them.
I think they were doing just fine with their previous trick: selling consumers on the highest clock rate (regardless of actual "work done per second" measures). Obviously they're panicking. They should chill out. But that's the problem, I guess, isn't it?
Satisfaction Per Watt? OK, SPEW wasn't bad but if your going to go for satisfaction per watt I think most ladies will go for shooping at Good Vibrations.
[I can't belive you let a dildo joke go by.]
I was sure I'd heard of SPW before and yes, it's a rating that Ann Summers gives to their sex toys.
o Intel wants to measure its CPUs with a satisfaction rating now. As in, this is how satisfied you'll be after spending this much money for this model of CPU ? I don't think so. It is now a rather well known fact that the performance, or satisfaction rating, of a PC depends on multiple elements, namely the chipset, the motherboard, the graphics card, the amount and speed of the RAM, and the size and speed of the hard discs, and finally, the processing power of the CPU. Last I checked, of these six elements, Intel makes one, and has very little say today over what the others do. For example, the rage today is about DDR3 and 1000Mhz bus speeds.
Mobo makers are implementing this, chipset makers are dealing with it and the dramurai are slavering away on the modules. Intel has little to do with this, apart from making its chips compatible. And if it didn't, it wouldn't sell any, because now people want DDR3 in their RAM slots. Consequently, it is not Intel's place to talk about platforms, overall satisfaction or global performance - Intel simply does not have the influence, from a technical standpoint. Put Intel's most powerful CPU in a system with 256MB of RAM, a DX7 graphics card and a 20GB disk at 5200RPM and tell me how much satisfaction you get out of it. Your place, Intel, is to tout just how many more instructions per second yours can do and for how much energy. Leave the satisfaction ratings to the hardware enthusiast sites that do the crazy benchmarks, or to Dell, which actually sells whole systems.
"Satisfaction per watt"? Are they comparing vibrators?
Satisfaction per Watt. Read: we're at our witt's end what bunkum to sell to the general publice. Their next press releases will be clouded in a suffusion of yellow...
Satisfaction per Watt... are they trying to sell processors or dildos?
I nearly "SPeWed" my leftover chipotle burrito when I read your story about Intel's new performance metric, SPW. As always, Intel is absolutely incapable of simply admitting they made an error and then correct it with hard work and ingenuity like everyone else does - no, they have to try to change the rules of the game into their favor through massive marketing campaigns instead: "Now lookie here Mr. Customer, you don't want that efficient thing do ya? What you really want is this shiny thingy over here that we've conveniently rebranded to look attractive to lemmings."
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig - as we used say in the old world. Yep, this time they've really shot themselves in the arse. It took 20 years for them to brainwash the world into thinking that more megahertz was always better. It'll probably only take 10 years to undo.
Thanks for making me laugh. Or rather, thanks Intel!
Two clear points arise from these letters. 1. This story is sure to have interesting Google ads. 2. Intel is sure to drop SPeW. ®