Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.sys.intel > #581

Re: Intel CPU prices going up?

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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:
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> You should also read
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
> or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have 
already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it. 
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...

> The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
> that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
> be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
> they seem to be one eyed.

Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion 
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.

>>> 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?
> 
> Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
> stonethrowing articles.

How hypocritical!  Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most 
people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load 
of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if 
you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a 
quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis.

>>> but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
>>> as any to track down
>>
>> mis-
>>
>>> information
> 
> Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
> faculties.

Time you started to acquire them.

>> Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.
> 
> I'm not just writing for your benefit.

You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own.  When you're 
in a hole, stop digging.

>>> 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.
>>
> Read the source
> http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery

Which one?  Every single publication listed there could have some 
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade 
through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small 
compared to that of CO2.

>>> 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?
> 
> I was referring to statistics.

I know, and I wasn't surprised.

> My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
> from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
> of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
> of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
> differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
> an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.

Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of 
Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music.  So what?

>> 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.

I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead 
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to 
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as 
in ...

> Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?

... the implication being that there might have been something wrong 
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note 
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists 
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're 
just trying to sling mud.

But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't 
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the 
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first 
findings having done so.  It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason 
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.

>>> 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.
> 
> You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
> when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.

I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to 
move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it.

>>> 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.
>>
> How do you explain the changes shown in
> https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA 
& NOAA for an explanation and/or gave them a chance to comment before 
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only 
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than 
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic 
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed.  Nor is it 
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked, 
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams 
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again, 
this is a well known tactic of denialists.  (It's rather like, in Jane 
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr 
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a 
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted 
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which 
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers 
it.)  Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only 
offer guesses.  Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements 
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it.  You 
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they 
not improve it?  But then when they do, they get accused of 
inconsistency and fraud!

>> 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.
> 
> Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
> which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
> his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
> http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery

Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory 
stands, according the figures already published it can only account for 
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to 
explain it all.  And there's still the possibility that increased cloud 
cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's 
radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on 
its way out from Earth's surface!

>> In short, no!
> 
> You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was
> threatened?

Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway, 
how would that change global warming itself?  Do you seriously believe 
it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it?

>>>> 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.
> 
> Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
> $100,000,000?

I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known 
denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.

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

"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company 
Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke 
and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:233–34[4] In the decade after 
2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate 
change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global 
warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the 
economy.[8]"

Note the link between tobacco denialism and climate change denialism, 
which tells you all you need to know  -  the latter learnt from the 
techniques of the former.  As far as funding goes, and, again, note the 
link with tobacco ...

"Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including 
$736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[81][115] Greenpeace 
reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[52] In 
2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of 
climate warming, including Heartland.[115][116][117][not in citation 
given] Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil 
was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its 
public image.[115]

The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco 
companies Philip Morris,[3]:234 Altria and Reynolds American, and 
pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli 
Lilly.[113] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former 
supporters.[118] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of 
donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct 
link...between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry 
and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive 
smoking can damage people's health."[57] The Institute opposes 
legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the 
rights of owners of bars and other establishments.[119]"

So again I ask, why are acting as the unpaid employee of big oil?  Or 
perhaps you are not unpaid?

>>>>>> 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.
> 
> You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible.

In other words, you have no real answer to that statement of fact.

> Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly
> independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain.

They were cleared of dishonestly and intentional wrong-doing, get used 
to it.

>> So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's
>> exactly what they do, but so what?
> 
> The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The
> conclusion is preordained.

LOL!  Coming from a denialist, that is breathtakingly hypocritical, but, 
although it tells us nothing useful about the IPCC, it does reveal much 
about the way your mind works  -  because you think in terms 
conspiracies, you also think that everyone else must be part of one! 
The sad, simple truth is that neither you nor the world are that 
interesting!  Its history shows that most governments couldn't organise 
the proverbial function in a brewery, let alone create and maintain over 
many decades some fantastical global conspiracy against you or me or 
anyone else.  I hardly expected to mention Jane Austen's novels twice in 
a thread about global warming denialism, but the fact that I can with 
some justification merely shows how unchanging is human nature, 
including its many flaws.  Her novel 'Northanger Abbey' is partly about 
a young woman who reads too many far-fetched and fantastic novels and, 
when she is unexpectedly invited to stay at the rather spooky eponymous 
residence, makes the mistake of thinking that its widowed proprietor 
somehow did away with his wife  -  the truth about her death turns out 
to be less interesting.  Similarly today we are plied endlessly with 
fantastically unrealistic films where one man succeeds in winning 
through against some ubiquitous conspiracy involving everyone from the 
president himself down to the man sweeping the street in front of the 
hero's house, none of whom he can trust.  Thankfully, the world is just 
not like that, but sadly, global warming is really real and is really 
happening, and so the IPCC were set up to investigate it, and are doing 
so.  This, however boring, is the simple truth.

>> 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.
> 
> Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth.

Only to those like yourself so misguided as to deny it.

>> 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.
>>
> The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in
> funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate
> change?

To improve the modelling so that we can predict the effects better.

>>
>> 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, ...
> 
> The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era
> when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is
> the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was.

It was known to be good, because we have had reasonably accurate 
thermometers for hundreds of years, let alone since 1960, and there is 
no need of 'modern technology' to measure temperature.

>> ... 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
> "The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and
> IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered.

Read again what I wrote in my introduction above, it was discovered in 
*1995*, *over a decade before* ClimateGate in 2009!  Wriggle as you may, 
there is no way that you can make this part of your irrational global 
conspiracy.

>> 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:
> 
> And it corrupted the understanding of the data.

Yes, at least one of the investigations openly acknowledged that, but 
that still doesn't make it a conspiracy, and the same investigation 
stated that it could find no evidence for one.

>> "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]
> 
> "should havebeen made plain".

Exactly, but again that's a mistake or oversight, not a conspiracy. 
Read again the following ...

>> 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