Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.intel > #574

Re: Intel CPU prices going up?

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>> 
>> On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This kind of stuff is garbage.
>>
>> I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
>> modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
>> temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far.  I
>> refer you again to:
>> http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
> 
> The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of
> publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on
> the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most
> carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally
> available data.

The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that 
you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation 
unsupported by any scientific provenance?  It can only be because it's a 
religion to you.  Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere.

>>> I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
>>> not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
>>> link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
>>> media.
>>
>> That depends on the media.  Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
>> with more mainstream media.  I listen regularly to BBC World Service
>> radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as
>> local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
>> count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
>> if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
>> webpage!"
> 
> That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
> selecting only one side of the argument.

The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a 
denialist agenda unsupported by any science.  The BBC have had a 
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be 
unpopular.  There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate 
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly 
man-made.  But the second part of that consensus still has some 
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as
journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the
evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in
terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the
public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the
next couple of hundred years.’

Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of
TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought
was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting
on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they
believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific
fact.'

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no
longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the
consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be
heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down
this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or
‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC.
Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as
minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must
give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more
offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes
of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet
is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public
awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and
accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only
sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding
both causation and solution. ..."

> I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
> has many contributors.

I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at 
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

> It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
> source paper or to the data set that has been used.

How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific 
provenance?

> The discussions tend to be biased 

Well I never, that's a surprise :-)

> but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
> as any to track down

mis-

> information

>>>> Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.
>>>
>>> _Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
>>> is properly peer reviewed.
>>
>> AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
>> peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.
> 
> Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
> so-called denialists or sceptics.

Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.

> Even CERN has to be careful how they
> present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
> case in point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of 
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction 
of the observed changes  -  the fact that the controversy has persisted 
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it 
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, 
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and 
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant 
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

>>>> Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
>>>> ever existed.
>>>
>>> Numeracy is not your strong point.
>>
>> But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
>> right, and you're wrong.  The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
>> onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
>> Nino superimposed on the long term trend.  Since then warming as
>> recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.
> 
> How are your statistics?

My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I 
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.

Mine are my mathematical weak point.

Ah!  Why am I not surprised?

> Apart
> from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me.

Then you should know better than to claim ...

> Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole
> situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third
> coming up.

Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that 
I linked?  How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is 
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?!  For example, it is 
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations 
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but 
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less 
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been 
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case 
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' 
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as 
inevitably it was bound to do).  And again, note the good correlation 
with CO2 levels.

>>>> Evidence?
>>>
>>> Published scientific literature.
>>
>> An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.
> 
> I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
> of 30 years of reading on the subject.

It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't 
any.  I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it 
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the 
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a 
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and 
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal 
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real 
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had 
a political or personal agenda.

> Apart from that chris has shown
> no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
> lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
> ferreting.

I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless 
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others 
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

>>>> The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
>>>> current climate change phenomenon.
>>>
>>> How has it been distorted?
> 
> I agree, I should have written discounted.
>>
>> It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on
>> the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem
>> poorly familiar with).
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
>>
>> "Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
>> warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
>> depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
>> levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
>> significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"
> 
> Hoo! That's a put down.

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources.  Or just read the 
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear 
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best 
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

>>> Follow the money.
>>
>> That is *exactly* what you are doing  -  most denialism is funded by big
>> oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:
> 
> And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any
> evidence thay have an axe to grind?

In short, no!

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change
>>
>> "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
>> to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
>> the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
>> by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
>> contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
>> support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
>> those studies."
>>
>> Oh yeh!  So why did they fund them then?!
> 
> If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
> persons and organizations who finate climate research.

It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked 
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.

>>>> Many are.
>>>
>>> Who?
>>
>> All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.
> 
> That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
> https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/ratification-tracker/ Many of
> these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
> reduce their standard of living.

They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're 
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  The 
two are not necessarily linked.

>>>>> There are few better.
>>>>
>>>> At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
>>>> agree.
>>>
>>> You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
>>> statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
>>> conclusion. It cannot be fudged.
>>
>> If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
>> purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged?
> 
> That's a loaded question.

As are all your arguments.

> I have never said that HadCRUT data has been
> fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that
> they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which
> suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect.

Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the 
denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction.  Unfortunately for 
you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the 
scientists involved of any intention to deceive.  See appended.

> I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However
> this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross
> McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/14/climate-research-in-the-ipcc-wonderland-what-are-we-really-measuring-and-why-are-we-wasting-all-that-money/
> or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
> McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious
> statistics.
>>
>>>> He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
>>>> Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
>>>> ramblings.
>>>>
>>>> https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/06conveyor2.html
>>>
>>> It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
>>> contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.
>>
>> No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams.
> 
> Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does
> happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small
> diagram of this in fig 3 of
> http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation
>>
>>>>> Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
>>>>> finding evidence of warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read paras 1 and 2 of
>>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
>>>> change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
>>>> already a given.
>>>
>>> It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
>>> was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
>>> since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
>>> established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
>>> this.
>>
>> You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
>> Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
>> Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
>> them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
>> euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
>> acceptance of what the science is telling us ...

[order changed to restore clarity of argument]

> That's politics again.
> THat's still politics and nothing much to with science.
> More politics.
> Even more politics.
> Yet more politics.
> That's internal politics.

Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now 
snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians, 
particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it, 
and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it, 
but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have 
misread the purpose of their inclusion.

 > You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that
 > the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is
 > that this is what they were set up to do.

I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the 
late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until 
1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and, 
as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my 
emphasis) ...

ROLE

2.   The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*, 
*objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical 
and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific 
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and 
options for adaptation and mitigation.  IPCC reports should be neutral 
with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with 
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the 
application of particular policies.

3.  Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is 
an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both 
peer review by experts and review by governments.

So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's 
exactly what they do, but so what?  Any idea that this is some global 
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians 
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject 
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy.  The simple 
scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked 
conspiracy theory.

>>>> It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
>>>> I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
>>>> better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
>>>> the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
>>>> where there might not be any.
>>>
>>> If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
>>> it been accepted as falsified?
>>
>> Because it hasn't been.  The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
>> improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
>> continuing and refining.
> 
> How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in?

Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can 
denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions' 
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view?  Take your 
OT sh*te elsewhere.


ClimateGate
===========

ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included 
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring 
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more 
recent times since the invention of thermometers.

AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the 
scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have 
not tracked temperature since around 1960.  To be exact, in these 
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a 
decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature 
measurements that this would be incorrect.  Further, as far as has been 
established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes 
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the 
sudden divergence all the more mysterious.  In loose scientific speak 
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such 
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning 
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.

If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, and ensure that you
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.

As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or 
deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the 
divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-intermediate.htm

However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted 
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a
mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:

"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):

The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]

However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the
literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"

But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the 
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note 
properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to 
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has 
yet explained.

Back to comp.sys.intel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-15 09:13 -0400
  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 10:58 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 12:19 -0500
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 18:43 -0400
  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 12:36 -0500
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-15 13:54 -0400
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 16:33 -0500
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-15 20:11 -0400
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-16 16:00 +1300
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 06:55 +0000
          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-16 21:54 +1300
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:52 +0000
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 17:14 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 07:51 +0000
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 23:43 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-17 14:08 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:45 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-18 13:57 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-19 14:42 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 09:59 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-19 16:19 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-10-19 23:49 +0000
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 09:45 +0000
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 14:48 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-21 12:33 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-22 12:17 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-22 13:06 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-20 16:06 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-20 12:22 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:38 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-21 23:49 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 09:14 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:41 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 23:37 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 21:55 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 12:13 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-22 12:25 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 21:21 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-27 13:55 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 10:17 +0000
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-18 09:29 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-17 11:05 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-17 10:58 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:47 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-18 09:11 -0400
          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-16 11:15 -0500
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:52 +0000
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 17:17 +1300
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 23:45 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-17 14:37 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:59 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-18 18:44 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-19 15:42 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-19 16:29 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-20 16:27 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-20 13:19 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:54 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-22 00:17 +0100
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 09:15 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:55 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 23:53 -0400
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 22:06 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 12:55 -0400
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-16 23:14 +0100
          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Sam E <same@isnt.mail.invalid> - 2018-10-16 12:21 -0500
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-23 02:45 -0400
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-23 12:45 -0500
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-24 00:29 -0400
          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-24 04:39 -0400
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-11-13 16:28 -0500
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-13 18:16 -0500
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-11-15 03:33 -0500
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-15 04:53 -0500
  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 13:54 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-15 17:19 -0400
  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-15 16:01 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 16:20 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:29 +0800
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-18 01:51 -0400
  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:25 +0800

csiph-web