×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

224 comments

If they need something to do, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941782)

They can go Occupy $LocalLargeTownName.

Re:If they need something to do, (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941900)

I am sure that there are many companies out there who would be more than happy to hire these folks to gain some insight into what plans are for the next few years from AMD. While cost cutting and laying off some people is never nice, certain industries that are so competitive will always be looking to hire (even bad employees) to gain access to their knowledge.

Heck, I work in a multinational retailer (read: tough times in terms of profits and trends) and we hired a guy who works for a competitor chain in Europe without so much as an interview - even knowing it is just for a few months while his girlfiend is on study vacation out here. Sometimes the more competitive the industry, the safer the employees.

Re:If they need something to do, (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942210)

I am sure that there are many companies out there who would be more than happy to hire these folks to gain some insight into what plans are for the next few years from AMD.

Have you met my friend, mister Breach of contract suit? [wikipedia.org]

Re:If they need something to do, (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942274)

*here you are laid off and also you can't work for the competitor, go die of hunger*
Even on link that you left, that clause is forbidden in California, where AMD has its headquarters.

Re:If they need something to do, (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942346)

So then they'll just slap them on to people who don't live in California. Mark Langsdorf, for example, worked for the Austin TX branch so California law has no jurisdiction there.

Re:If they need something to do, (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942284)

Non-compete clauses are pretty much not allowed in California, and AMD is located in California.

Re:If they need something to do, (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942324)

Great, but tons of AMD employees both don't reside in California nor in the US..

Re:If they need something to do, (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943358)

So, they all need to go get the job they prefer, then wait for AMD to file suit, and fight it.

Personally, I have zero respect for any non-compete clauses. The company claims to have rights and authorities regarding employment, whether it's written into a contract or not. And, the employee has none.

Around the world, if a company decides to fire you or lay you off, you find out two minutes before you are on the pavement, wondering what just happened. BUT - if you plan on moving to another job, the company demands a two week notice. I say, "WTF?" When I decide to move on, I figure that calling my old boss from my new desk to tell him that I won't be back is good enough.

Re:If they need something to do, (1)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943614)

In Australia, at least, they are required to pay out your notice.

I'd rather be given the heave-ho with a month of salary in my pocket than be forced to come in day after day knowing I'd been laid off.

Re:If they need something to do, (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942310)

I am sure that there are many companies out there who would be more than happy to hire these folks to gain some insight into what plans are for the next few years from AMD.

I'm sure they'll also love the lawsuit from AMD for breaking trade secret laws. If the company is smart they'll give up any employee attempting to do so and let them get the lawsuit instead.

Re:If they need something to do, (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942382)

I'm sure they'll also love the lawsuit from AMD for breaking trade secret laws.

Bring in detailed plans on a USB and it's easy to prove by your former employer. Bring ideas in your head as well as comments like "Yeah, we tried that direction, but came up against issues with ...." are certainly not easy to prove. Besides, Intel isn't going to be stupid enough to try to get schematics and diagrams. It's much more about knowing long term plans, where companies are steering. What ideas they are looking to develop.

In our case, it's about finding as much as is possible about how their supply chain differs from ours. What details they take into account in their forecasting models, things like that. Half the value is simply seeing our issues from a completely different angle, then having our own ideas on how to best come up with solutions. Getting someone to prove that in a court of law? Good luck.

Re:If they need something to do, (5, Interesting)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942462)

Bring ideas in your head as well as comments like "Yeah, we tried that direction, but came up against issues with ...." are certainly not easy to prove.

Keep telling yourself that.

Besides, Intel isn't going to be stupid enough to try to get schematics and diagrams. It's much more about knowing long term plans, where companies are steering. What ideas they are looking to develop.

Trade secrets involve more than just schematics and diagrams. Long term plans are also trade secrets and if you think Intel is dumb enough to try that, you are an idiot. Intel has itself gone after people who have left them to go to AMD for trying to steal trade secrets. They aren't going to open themselves up to similar lawsuits. They'll throw that employee to the wolves and let them enjoy the lawsuit from AMD.

In our case, it's about finding as much as is possible about how their supply chain differs from ours. What details they take into account in their forecasting models, things like that. Half the value is simply seeing our issues from a completely different angle, then having our own ideas on how to best come up with solutions. Getting someone to prove that in a court of law? Good luck.

Except that people have been successfully prosecuted for doing that. But hey, go ahead and try it. I'm sure you'll love losing that lawsuit as you get thrown under the bus.

I guess ... (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941794)

... they'll just have to overclock the rest.

Re:I guess ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942492)

Won't help much considering they'r already water cooled :(

Re:I guess ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943156)

More insightful than funny. Might start acting a little buggy though.

Bonus time. (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941946)

Expect to see EXTREMELY large executive bonuses come December.

It is a system that makes sense in one way - shareholders simply want maximized return on money, and shareholders in amalgam play the role of idiots without an interest in future of the company willing to pay money for a stake and a vote.

So, in return for promise of transforming the company in an idiotic direction that sounds good from the perspective of shareholder marketing, the shareholders then provide bonuses to the management.

Thus solving the problem once and for all. ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Bonus time. (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942008)

So am I an asshole for making a note to check out AMD as an investment opportunity?

Re:Bonus time. (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942080)

No. But most likely this news is already incorporated into the share price (I know the market is closed now), so this may or may not be a good time to buy.

Re:Bonus time. (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942636)

Yeah, he needs to learn that trading on "news" is possibly even worse than trading completely at random. Besides if you look at the past 13 years of the stock market, you are just as likely to make money in the next 5 years or so by buying stock as you are by selling it. The market has been jogging in place since 1998.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942926)

Especially when you're talking about AMD, the volume of speculation on the options, and the correlation with other (bigger) tech companies make the AMD share price move in the opposite direction of what makes sense almost all the time...

Re:Bonus time. (2)

artg (24127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942312)

Why would you invest in a company that has lost confidence in it's own future ?

Re:Bonus time. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942556)

Meh. Show me a large corporation that can't stand to cut the bottom 10% of dead wood, and I'll show you Santa Claus riding a unicorn.

Re:Bonus time. (2, Insightful)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942920)

Show me a company that actually knows which 10% constitutes dead wood, and....

Re:Bonus time. (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943404)

The dead wood is mostly at the top, with some of stuck in middle management. The worker bees may or may not have some deadwood among them, but the majority of the deadwood is all located at the top. And, cost wise, cutting a little deadwood from the management structure saves more money than cutting a ton of deadwood from the bottom. One executive bonus equals about 20 employees annual salary these days, often times more!

Re:Bonus time. (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942326)

No, but you might be a poor investor. Yes, it'll boost immediate returns but only by sacrificing long-term benefits. The benefit will be brief. It's things like this that are why investment is almost entirely cognitive illusion [guardian.co.uk] and not based on skill or rational thought. The ones who are any good work along selective inaction. Responding to the market is the worst thing you can do.

Re:Bonus time. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943150)

WARNING: Goatse alert! Don't click that link!

Re:Bonus time. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942616)

Sure, if you like to short stock. AMD can't seem to stop sucking for the past few years. They almost ate Intel's lunch, but he with the deepest pockets wins. Too bad that now they will take ATI with them if they go under.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943232)

Advanced Micro Devices Inc. slashed its global employment by 1,400 jobs...to boost profits and re-balance its work force to pursue new product areas

Phrases like re-balance work force to pursue new product areas make me want to vomit.

So am I an asshole for making a note to check out AMD as an investment opportunity?

Yes and a pawn [google.com] .

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942064)

The ridiculous point is - nobody with any sense invests long-term any more. Which is the fundamental problem for stockholders and employees alike - long term health of the company is meaningless to the PHB's trying to ramp up profits to look good when their yearly "performance review" is due, and the quickest way to do that is to fire employees.

Sure, the company's in the shitter two years down the road, but by then the CEO's quit and taken his stock options to the bank.

Re:Bonus time. (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942148)

The ridiculous point is - nobody with any sense invests long-term any more.

You can't invest long-term when government economic policy is swerving from side to side like a twelve year old who's emptied his Dad's liquor cabinet and then borrowed the Porsche.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942414)

The ridiculous point is - nobody with any sense invests long-term any more.

You can't invest long-term when government economic policy is swerving from side to side like a twelve year old who's emptied his Dad's liquor cabinet and then borrowed the Porsche.

If you plan for the long term, stuff tends to even itself out. But I disagree with the idea that government policy is careening. It seems to have been on a pretty straight course for a long time now. They all spend as much as they can, then when the bills come due, Republicans squelch any options that could bring in direct revenue to pay them, claiming that what really needs to be done is to cut future spending (a concept my creditors would never let me get away with). Not that they're actually willing to cut anything that is likely to pass. The only thing worst than tax-and-spend is to not-tax-and-spend, and that's been Republican policy for over a decade.

What kills me is the idea that somehow executive compensation is necessarily going to trickle down into either increased share value or dividends. That's like saying that the more you pay the executives, the more jobs they'll create. The only jobs that the executives directly create out of their own pockets are things like the illegal maid and gardener. It's the company that does the serious hiring. Or not. And when an executive makes 400 times what a regular employee does, that's an awful lot of potential hires diverted.

Re:Bonus time. (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943462)

I've not noticed much swerving in economic policy. The government has steadily been working to wreck the United States economy.

For fifty years or more, we've had no immigration policy worth mentioning.
NAFTA
China "free trade"
CAFTA
outsourcing
exporting jobs
"work visas" freely passed around like candy at halloween, and the conditions unenforced
rewarding illegal aliens with free college tuition
rewarding illegal aliens with free legal counsel
rewarding illegal aliens with free health care
tax cuts for companies that export jobs

Have I missed anything important? If I have, I've included enough to show that our government is NOT swerving back and forth. They are on a steady course to destroying the middle class.

Re:Bonus time. (4, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942118)

No it doesn't make sense.

I am going to fire a bunch of people to save x millions of dollars over the next 3-5 years but right now I am going to pay out x millions (yea it is often a similar number) right now to give a bonus to a multi millionaire who doesn't need it.

The worst part is that next year they pay the bonus out again, and again all while the company loses money.

Instead of firing people to pay out bonuses. why not do something simple like cut upper management salary by 50%, and automatically save 3 or 5x right away. But you almost never here about a CEO or board, or congress who is willing to put the company(or country) before their own salary.

Re:Bonus time. (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942260)

Instead of firing people to pay out bonuses. why not do something simple like cut upper management salary by 50%

In the prosperous 1960s, CEOs made about 30x the salary of the average worker for the same company.

Today, it goes higher than 1000x.

Corporate profits are up, worker incomes are down. That is not an economic system that is sustainable.

And, "the market" applauds when the prime minister of Greece announces that no, the Greek people won't have a say in their future after all. All you have to do is turn on the news tonight, any channel from Fox to NPR to hear the economic elite talk about how pleased they are that the people won't have a say in their future. It's stunning, really, to hear how out of whack our system has become thanks to the laissez-faire, supply-side, "trickle-down" economics that have been the policy of every US government since 1980.

It's the kind of intractable, illogical, unjust mess that can make people very angry.

Re:Bonus time. (4, Insightful)

inviolet (797804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942384)

And, "the market" applauds when the prime minister of Greece announces that no, the Greek people won't have a say in their future after all. All you have to do is turn on the news tonight, any channel from Fox to NPR to hear the economic elite talk about how pleased they are that the people won't have a say in their future.

Not all statements are correct. Not all opinions are wise or even meaningful. Asking for economic advice from Greek citizens, more than 50% of whom are collecting a check for parasitic employment in a comically bloated public sector of a dead economy, is unlikely to yield anything useful.

In fact, left to their own devices, most citizens (not merely Greeks) will make short-sighted short-term-pain-minimizing decisions that will eventually wreck their culture's pattern. Democracy exists as a check on tyranny, NOT as a source of omniscience.

Re:Bonus time. (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942744)

Not all statements are correct. Not all opinions are wise or even meaningful. Asking for economic advice from Greek citizens, more than 50% of whom are collecting a check for parasitic employment in a comically bloated public sector of a dead economy, is unlikely to yield anything useful.

OK, I noticed that yesterday and today there were two national polls taken that show if the elections were held today, the Democrats would take back the House of Representatives and Obama would be re-elected. Do you believe that the elections should be cancelled because you don't believe that decision is wise or meaningful?

Greece is called the birthplace of democracy. Isn't it a little bit ironic that today in Greece it is announced that no, the people should not have a voice in their future because they have a stake in the outcome of the vote?

Every one of us has a stake in the output of elections. We benefit or are hurt to varying degrees. We vote based upon our own interests.

Should we just toss the constitution and go back to having only white male landowners vote because their vote is more "correct" and "meaningful"? Or will we have a system where people have some say in the way they are governed?

In fact, left to their own devices, most citizens (not merely Greeks) will make short-sighted short-term-pain-minimizing decisions that will eventually wreck their culture's pattern.

Since all corporations make "short-sighted short-term-pain-minimizing decisions that will eventually wreck their culture's pattern" then you must agree that they should not be allowed to participate in elections at any level, including financially. Especially since corporations are not citizens.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943660)

Which is sad, because they are in on it too.

That's why I don't get the tea party hate, the ones who want to stop bail outs and listen to their people.

B B B BUT THEYRE RACIST!! goebels was right, repeat it enough times.

The OWS has more in common with the tea party than democrats.

Re:Bonus time. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942762)

more than 50% of whom are collecting a check for parasitic employment in a comically bloated public sector of a dead economy

The German economy is not a dead economy. Oh wait, what?

Re:Bonus time. (5, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942878)

The German economy is not a dead economy. Oh wait, what?

You make a very good point, friend. German workers retire earlier than Greek workers and the German economy is even more worker-friendly than the southern-European governments. They are every bit as "socialist" as France or Italy or Greece or Sweden, yet they are strong enough to lead Europe economically.

They one big difference is that Greece doesn't tax its rich people and Germany does. In fact, there are a bigger percentage of millionaires and billionaires with Greek residency as any other EU country just for that reason.

Re:Bonus time. (-1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943046)

I was with you up until you mentioned taxation. The problem is not one of insufficient income. Rather it's one of too much expenditure. Sure, raise taxes and tax the rich. Those dumb enough not to move or hide their assets will pay. But it will not solve the problem, when the next elected official comes in and decides to increase spending even more (because after all there is more money than ever coming in). All that will result is that the smart rich people will leave (or at least their assets will), the dumb rich people won't be so rich anymore, and Greece will still be drowning in debt, but with even less chance of recovery.

Governments around the world have fallen into the trap of thinking that they can spend forever without any consequences. While economic growth tended to mask any downside to these policies everything was fine. But now we are bumping into real limits. All the good land is already built on or farmed. All the nicest forests are already harvested. All the easy wells, dams, bridges and reservoirs are already built. Any further growth is either going to be very, very expensive or is going to put a lot of strain on existing resources. So every additional money spent by government is becoming less and less productive. That - without taking into account that the actual purchasing power of all fiat money is a shadow of what it used to be.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943228)

Sure, cut spending. It will not solve the problem, when the next elected official comes in and decides to cut taxes even more (because after all there is more money than ever freed up).

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943430)

I was with you up until you mentioned taxation

Whey does a problem of spending negate a problem with taxation? Why can't both be faulty? Oh, because it's easier to manipulate people by pointing at one or the other and refusing to except that both could be a problem. Spending is a problem therefore nevermind any issues with taxation. Taxation is the problem nevermind any issues with spending.

Re:Bonus time. (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943534)

All the nicest forests are already harvested. All the easy wells, dams, bridges and reservoirs are already built. Any further growth is either going to be very, very expensive or is going to put a lot of strain on existing resources.

And all the good wells have been drilled. Blah blah.

People innovate. That's what they do. But innovation comes from healthy societies and with increasing income disparities and growing populations of economically threatened people, we are not a healthy society.

Governments around the world have fallen into the trap of thinking that they can spend forever without any consequences.

I'll give you that if you agree that corporations have fallen into the trap of thinking that they can grow forever. That economies can grow forever. That profits can grow forever.

Fact is, there is plenty wealth so that nobody has to live in poverty. And by "poverty" I mean that if your wife gets sick you can't afford to get her good medical treatment. By that measure, there are a lot of Americans in poverty. There are actually people in the US who don't have enough to eat, who don't have access to health care, and are working 40 hours a week or more.

Government, at least in the US, is us. If we believe we can "spend forever without any consequences" it's because we are well aware that we are an economy out of whack, out of balance. The problem is not spending, it is insufficient revenue. With a healthy economy, reasonable trade policy and progressive taxation we can do the things that Americans agree are worthwhile, like provide health care, retirement and a decent infrastructure.

But now we are bumping into real limits.

Limits of what? Of fossil fuels? Of rates of corporate growth and consolidation?

It seems the only "real limit" we are bumping into is the limit to people's patience with "supply-side" economics.

Things are changing faster than I ever thought they would. Two polls in two days show that congress could swing back to the Democrats. We could end up with another "wave election" next November going back the other way. People are so pissed that they're going to start throwing people out every two years until there is some accountability.

All that will result is that the smart rich people will leave

Baloney. John Galt is the fantasy of people with daddy issues. He's not real. And with people all over the world starting to get sick of this "trickle-down" baloney, John Galt may just have to go off-planet to avoid paying his fair share of taxes. Another "real limit" that's being reached is the limit of how rich a person needs to be when there are people without enough to eat. That sounds harsh and anti-capitalistic, but shit, if the economic and political elite had been a little more reasonable instead of stealing everything that's not cemented down we wouldn't be in a position where they have to start worrying about pitchforks and guillotines. And yes, automated trading is stealing. Usury is stealing. CDOs are stealing. Bailouts of big banks is at least as much "stealing" as a 90% top tax rate like we had in the '50s.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943704)

Fact is, there is plenty wealth so that nobody has to live in poverty.

So in your fantasy world you see everyone at the top of the pyramid and no one at the bottom? There is no room, friend. There will always be people who achieve more with less. There will always be people who have more than most. That's just the way of the world. Resources such as wealth, brains, talent, are not uniform but scattered in clumps. Those who have it will guard it jealously from those who want to take it but don't know what to do with it. While I admit that the general "standard of living" can get better for the whole society, wealthy as well as poor - there will always be an elite class and a much larger jealous class. It was even this way in the Soviet Union, and I bet you Chairman Mao never lacked for food even when millions of Chinese were starving in the 1960's.

This increase in standard of living is brought about by technology. Technology is driven by (cheap) energy. There are limits to our energy production, too. There's 40 years of oil left in the world, at current consumption levels. Less if you account for growth. China is adding demand to the equivalent of Australia, every year. You wonder why oil doesn't budge from $90-$100 a barrel anymore? Cheap oil is gone forever. People claim there's 200 years' worth of coal and maybe the same for natural gas - again at current levels of consumption. And once it's all burned - then what? The law of thermodynamics won't change, no matter how innovative we get. You cannot create energy out of thin air, and technology is not magical. Eventually we will run into the inefficiencies inherent in the laws of the universe and the price we will pay is quality of life and standard of living. And the poor will suffer much, much more than the rich.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942772)

In fact, left to their own devices, most citizens (not merely Greeks) will make short-sighted short-term-pain-minimizing decisions that will eventually wreck their culture's pattern. Democracy exists as a check on tyranny, NOT as a source of omniscience.

If you decide that the voters don't get to make a decision because it is short sited, how are you not a tyrant? Of course an omniscient tirent with perfect intentions can make better decisions than a set of human voters. Until you find that omniscient tyrant, the choice should be made by the voters.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942988)

you sir need to stop watching TV.
more than 50% are in public sector???????
you are I N S A N E, where did you heard that please? i REALLY want to know.

feel free to check for yourself http://laborsta.ilo.org the real number (and its going down day by day)

Re:Bonus time. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942748)

The "market" is paying less attention to Greece than the news media would have you believe. Other things like Bernanke's announcement of QE3 (sorry they call it accommodation now), increased productivity (+3.1%) and factory orders (+0.3%) have much more impact on the market than Greece. Have to buy now before printing-press driven inflation sends prices up even further, especially when the promise of more cheap money is on the horizon. But all the press sees is the "drama" in Greece. And of course this works in favor of the politicians since it gives them an excuse to transfer wealth from you and me a little more in the name of crisis prevention.

Re:Bonus time. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942886)

That referendum is a joke. Asking the people if they want external help *after* they accepted billions of Euros from the IMF and fucking up the economy with their demands?

The Greeks are fucked (and so are we, the Portuguese). They, like us, will spend the next decades slave laboring to their news masters until the debt is paid.

Re:Bonus time. (1)

mojo-raisin (223411) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943848)

That is because top CEO positions are quite rare and difficult.

This is the free market at work, and is a corollary of individual freedom.

Where you should direct your ire, is at large gov entities: Freddie/Fannie, Fed Res, IRS, DHS, DOD, etc. Those are the leeches destroying our economy.

Not CEOs.

Re:Bonus time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943928)

Hey, let's hand over our Linux customers to Intel!

Re:Bonus time. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942672)

why not do something simple like cut upper management salary by 50%, and automatically save 3 or 5x right away.

And that way upper management will all quit and go work somewhere else, and the company won't have managers left (except of course the bad ones who can't go anywhere else). Believe it or not, management is actually an important part of a company. They don't just sit on their asses all day and tell people to get to work on time.

Re:Bonus time. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943002)

The question is how much are they worth. Are they worth 1,000 times the cost of the labour actually doing the work and earning the profits, keeping in mind management is a overhead not a profit centre and 1,000 additional worker could be earning a profit. It is easy to see how corporate executive remuneration has been corrupted via collusion and multiple appearances of the same psychopathic executives faces on the boards of multiple companies.

Re:Bonus time. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943090)

The question is how much are they worth.

The problem with talent is that the rate is set by your competitor - not by you. It's not how much is it worth to your company - it's how much is your competitor willing to pay. Certainly management is worth the value of the whole company, because the whole company would cease to exist without it. That's the difference really between line workers and management. You can pretty much be guaranteed homogenity across factory workers - their skills are largely dependent on culture and education of the society your company is in. Firing some and training up some others will result in pretty much the same productivity. But management talent is highly specialized and individual. Smart people are hard to come by.

Re:Bonus time. (3, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943126)

never said it wasn't. managers and especially good mangers are tough to find.

however no one is worth 1,000 times the janitor. without whom the place literally turns to shit. No one is worth 800 times the salesmen who actual drive the profits. or the workers without whom your orders don't actually get filled.

For this Circuit city is my favorite punching bag. They fired all their top salesmen, to save money hired new people, paid out bonuses at like 75% of the money they saved by firing people to the board, and a little over a year later declared bankruptcy.

All so a manager can get a bonus.

that is the skill set your defending.

Re:Bonus time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943724)

You're not in upper management. If you're working your ass off you're doing it wrong. You should be implementing procedure, providing tools, evaluating workloads. If you do this right you shouldn't be doing anything all day besides wading through presentations with buzzwords and emphasis on length over content (thanks to educations emphasis on lengthy essays over content). Every pay raise/promotion I have ever received meant less real work.

I take that back. Middle management does that. No neither of us are in upper management as we are posting on slasdot. I only know that my pay scale has always been inversely proportional to the amount of hard work I do. Sure as you make more money you live in neighborhoods that make more money. If you get caught up with keeping up with the Jones's you will be stressed out. But hard work. Bah.

Correction (1)

gorilla_au (912640) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941972)

Is it 10% of AMD's global workforce or 11%?

Re:Correction (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942000)

Is it 10% of AMD's global workforce or 11%?

Rounding error, Luyseyal ran the article through an early Pentium with the FDIV bug.

shoudda got AMD!

Re:Correction (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942020)

Yeah, the editor (samzenpus, I guess) took the title from a different submission. 1400/12000 = 0.11666666...

-l

Going to be a tough market anyway (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941984)

With the disruption of technology firms in Thailand, I expect more companies to follow suit.

Sacking developers (5, Insightful)

Tomato42 (2416694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941994)

Sacking one of the people responsible for good Linux performance on servers is not just stupid... it's cutting the branch which you're sitting on.

Re:Sacking developers (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942354)

I wonder if the "final" set of patches from AMD include an easter-egg encouraging you to buy Intel.

Re:Sacking developers (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942520)

Long term, the goons sitting in the lofty cream layer will notice more and more that their branches are getting thin.
Richard Wolff has some good facts how this come together - or not, as it stands right now.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/products/wolr002 [alternativeradio.org]
The MP3 dl is $ 2, I am not affiliated with them.

Re linux: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942054)

It's ok, the source is there and I'm sure anybody would be able to understand and maintain it.

Where's the Bailout? (0)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942060)

Man, if anyone's "too big to fail" it's the second largest company in a critical industry with just two major players. Maybe that would be too small too fail. Whatever.

Intel's certainly done well at keeping up a legitimate release schedule in the last five years, especially for a company with no real competition at all, but I'd hate to see the world where Intel suddenly gets that last 20% of processor market share by default. Their prices aren't exactly low to begin with.

I mean really, what's the most recent company that had any real development capability and brand presence besides those two? Cyrix? Via?

A world without AMD would suck...

Re:Where's the Bailout? (-1, Flamebait)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942114)

Man, if anyone's "too big to fail" it's the second largest company in a critical industry with just two major players. Maybe that would be too small too fail. Whatever.

Intel's certainly done well at keeping up a legitimate release schedule in the last five years, especially for a company with no real competition at all, but I'd hate to see the world where Intel suddenly gets that last 20% of processor market share by default. Their prices aren't exactly low to begin with.

I mean really, what's the most recent company that had any real development capability and brand presence besides those two? Cyrix? Via?

A world without AMD would suck...

GOP has no sympathies for California companies. Didn't you get the memo? AMD and Intel are blocks from each other, in Silicon Valley, California. Either one could founder and they'd hardly bat an eye ... but if they were banks, well, that's another matter entirely - bail them out and then spread disinformation it was themocrats what were behind it and wasting the people's money.

Why should they? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942750)

"GOP has no sympathies for California companies."

Well, they're so busy donating to Obama hoping for GE-like tax subsidies... of course the GOP won't support them.

Maybe they'll consider that next election. If you're going to pick a winner, then be prepared to live with the consequences.

As to the rest of your idiotic rant, its Obama that bailed out all the banks and financial institutions, but I guess you're too busy playing with your iPhone to notice.

Re:Why should they? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943734)

"GOP has no sympathies for California companies."

Well, they're so busy donating to Obama hoping for GE-like tax subsidies... of course the GOP won't support them.

Maybe they'll consider that next election. If you're going to pick a winner, then be prepared to live with the consequences.

As to the rest of your idiotic rant, its Obama that bailed out all the banks and financial institutions, but I guess you're too busy playing with your iPhone to notice.

That's what I'm talking about - the first bailout was passed while he was still running for President. Well done, you prove my point with emphasis of calling me an idiot.

The GOP through the George W. Bush years didn't care much for California (or really much else of the country) It's largely assumed because despite a great many republicans living in California, many of whom are very conservative, the state appears to the rest of the country as Liberal or Moderate at the very most, so not a lot of interest in the GOP doing anything for anyone or business in the state. Aside the push to get Gray Davis ousted, after the administration overlooked the criminal manipulation of the power industry (hey, deregulation is good, right?) there was genuine hope of a conservative being elected - alas, Arnold stepped in and derailed that train.

Meg had all sorts of good ideas - mostly theories, as she'd never held office, nor taken interest in the political affairs of the state (or nation) by voting for years. Yet, millions believed she was the one to save California. Now HP are saddled with her - good luck giving her the boot without having to pay her tens of millions in an exit package.

Really did have high hopes for HP, but the writing was on the wall when they picked her.

Re:Where's the Bailout? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942132)

If it "fails" perhaps a Chinese investor will buy it. There is no inherent reason that AMD can't implode then be reborn elsewhere.

Re:Where's the Bailout? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942264)

If it "fails" perhaps a Chinese investor will buy it. There is no inherent reason that AMD can't implode then be reborn elsewhere.

If they've done any classified design work for the DoD I don't think the US gummint would allow it.

Re:Where's the Bailout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943212)

Im sure the current Saudi prince who owns the majority stake in it and the foundry will if it makes him money.

Re:Where's the Bailout? (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943050)

They're not failing just yet. They clawed back some market share this quarter because of the success of fusion. Although AMD can't compete with Intel on CPUs, Intel can't compete with AMD on integrated graphics. Don't know if what will happen when Intel's 3D transistors come out though.

To bad intel bullied AMD and that hurt AMD long te (-1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942224)

To bad intel bullied AMD and that hurt AMD long term.

Amd give alot more MB / chipset choice then intel.

With Intel you have to pay like $280+ to get a CPU that has more then X16 pci-e. Now with the lower end boards you need a switch on the X16 or cut video down to x8 to get pci-e lanes for pci-e slots other then the one for video and usb 3.0. If you have all the cpu x16 lanes going to a video card then all other pci-e / io has to be all on the cpu chip set link that is only like pci-e x4. Think about it usb 3.0, sata 6, gig-e, sound, fire wire and so on all running over a pci-e x4 link.

Re:To bad intel bullied AMD and that hurt AMD long (-1, Flamebait)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942412)

Hey look, another stupid post from Joe Dragon!

Amd give alot more MB / chipset choice then intel.

Yeah, because the 396 different Intel desktop motherboards to choose from on Newegg makes it impossible to have any choice.

The amd chipset offer alot more choice then (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942698)

with intel all the Sandy Bridge chipsets offer the same # for pci-e lanes and only small changes like # of sata ports and or usb ports also some don't pass though cpu based video.

The AM3 / AM3+ amd chip sets offer.

Integrated graphics at different levels some even with on board ram just for the on board video chips that is WAY better then intel video.

Hybrid video.

Lot's of pci-e choices so you don't have to buy a $280 + cpu to get a lot of pci-e IO.

The lower end chipset have like 22 pci-e lanes + 4 for chipset link. so you can have 16 for video + x4 slots + some x1 slots.

with intel you get 16 for video + 4 for chipset link.

ouch (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942248)

Hope that AMD pulls through, intel fanboys should too.

Remember the early PIII era? What fun that was, until AMD got competitive again.

Re:ouch (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942334)

Remember the early PIII era? What fun that was, until AMD got competitive again.

As far as I'm concerned Intel went straight from Pentium 2 to Core 2. Whatever that crap was in between, it sure wasn't the product of an industry leader.

Re:ouch (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942424)

Ah, I thought PIII was pretty solid, it was just bloody expensive. I seem to recall the frequencies going up faster and the prices being cut more often once the athlon started to get a decent chunk of the market.

P4/netburst was a shitsack, though, especially the early ones. IIRC the 1GHz or 1.13GHz, whatever was top of the line at the time, PIIIs were still blowing the first gen P4s out of the water... pathetic.

Re:ouch (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942838)

Remember the early PIII era? What fun that was, until AMD got competitive again.

As far as I'm concerned Intel went straight from Pentium 2 to Core 2. Whatever that crap was in between, it sure wasn't the product of an industry leader.

Coppermine, the little L2 that could. First released just before the Athlon and staying competitive by rapidly racing from 500 MHz or so up to 1 GHz.

Is it more expensive today to develop a processor? (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942446)

Sure it's more complicated but is it actually any harder, does it require a larger investment than it did 10 years ago? I ask because there was a time when AMD seemed much more competitive. They were usually a little ways behind but would have big products like the Thunderbird and the X2 pop up every now and then giving Intel a run for their money.

Now we've seen 2 consecutive product releases that pale in comparison to Intel. Bulldozer was supposed to be big.

Intel has way more money to invest in R&D. The newer fabrication methods such as moving to 28 nm seem to be giving everyone trouble, Intel, AMD, Nvidia. Does it cost so much now to develop a chip that a relatively small company like AMD just doesn't have enough money to research these more challenging technologies? After all, Intel is going to release Ivy Bridge in 6 months featuring tri-gate technology and it will be that long before AMD tunes their new architecture.

AMD just seems to be slipping further and further away from Intel and it's sad...

Re:Is it more expensive today to develop a process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942712)

Sure it's more complicated but is it actually any harder, does it require a larger investment than it did 10 years ago?

Yes

Would you rather the Chinese own the market? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942840)

What you rather have? An American dominated market, or a Chinese one? Be careful what you wish for.

Re:Is it more expensive today to develop a process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942910)

The real problem was that when AMD was kicking Intel's ass, Intel was using illegal tactics to keep AMD out of the market. They did that for a couple of years while they re-designed their products to be competitive. That was AMD's one shot to get some great market share and Intel stole it. Later Intel paid AMD over a billion dollars to get AMD's cooperation to end the DOJ antitrust investigations of Intel. Once AMD lost that large amount of cash back then they didn;t have the budget to upgrade their fabs. It was just a matter of time before AMD couldn't compete.

Re:Is it more expensive today to develop a process (1)

tukang (1209392) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942970)

I wouldn't count AMD out just yet. They've delivered on combining the CPU and GPU and their integrated GPU is far more powerful than Intel's. Their CPUs are lacking but if they can catch up to Intel a bit, they already have all the other pieces in place and will be in a very strong position to compete, so I wouldn't count them out just yet.

"Often posts"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942574)

Mark Langsdorf, who often posts AMD patches to the Linux Kernel Mailing List.

Mark Langsdorf authored a grand total of 22 patches in Linus' git tree since August 2005. Either slashdot editors have a very strange definition of "often posts", or this guy's patches are often lousy.

Re:"Often posts"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37942646)

Probably 22 more then you have....

Re:"Often posts"? (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942998)

More than three per year seems pretty often to me. Are there really many people churning out a patch every couple weeks?

It's all downhill from here (4, Interesting)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#37942714)

I encourage everyone to read The Lights In the Tunnel, as a primer on the coming age of technologically driven systemic unemployment.

Think of an idealized chip factory/company. The machines run themselves, AI systems design ever better version; raw material goes in one side and pallets of CPUs come out the other side.

This is a 100% capital intensive business, and has almost zero labor requirements. We're not there yet, obviously, but every year we'll get closer. Companies will be able to do more with less workers, prices will drop, and supply will be limited only by how much resources you have to turn into chips. That's ONE side of the equation. The other side is that such an efficient and streamlined business is destined to quickly go bankrupt.

In a capitalist economy, every worker is also a consumer. There will be no other sector of the economy to shunt those unemployed workers to, especially not at the level they were employed at previously, because all the other businesses have gone capital-intensive too. Strangely, the most secure jobs will be the lowest paid and traditionally least desirable jobs such as janitors, cleaners, cooks, and other services. It's actually easier to build an automated chip factory than it is to produce a robot that can do everything a human janitor can do. When you lay off a worker, you're also getting rid of a potential customer. Now, one business doing this when all the others don't would benefit and outcompete the others. So to keep up, they all have to become more efficient (which in modern times means becoming less labor intensive). Each business doing what's best for itself in isolation ends up ruining everything for everyone. This is a classic tragedy of the commons scenario, but it's applied to the mass market itself as the common good, something that most mainstream economists, politicians, and citizens don't yet accept.

Re:It's all downhill from here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37943792)

once we get automated enough bet on the elites genociding everyone else

Horrible news, idiotic "analyst" (2)

serbanp (139486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943054)

From TFA:

"This comes after the arrival of a new chief executive and it is after the successful introduction of new products, so it is about right-sizing the company," said analyst Cody Acree with Williams Financial Group in Austin.

"You don't cut until you have done all the work you need to get new products out," he said. "But once you have them out and have identified what you need to do to keep moving forward, then you have more of a reason to go ahead and take job actions. You don't want to make the cuts before the CEO gets in, and you don't want to make the cuts before you get the products out. Now that those two are passed, it is time to get the cost structure in line with the rest of the fabless semiconductor industry"

This a**hole talks about the layoffs as one would discuss tree pruning. I guess that the whole "anal-yst" trade group is full of psychopaths, devoid of any humanity.

Very unlockable (1)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#37943918)

I would say 10% of just about any corporation on earth is fluff anyway. I love my Phenom II x2 which allowed both disabled cores to unlock and now runs as a Phenom II x4 955... and so I bought an Althon II x3 which also allowed for the 4th core to unlock and it now runs as a Phenom II x 4 940. In total I spent about $200 for 8 stable cores. Well done AMD!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...