CNN ran a spot on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight featuring Alison Fahey, Editor of Ad Week, and, Bishop TD Jakes. The topic was on a current trend of corporations sponsoring of Christian events. Alison’s had two points, but the one that stuck out for me was that the advertiser may be sponsoring a Christian event one day, then an event with completely divergent values & views the next. Bishop TD Jakes’s view was that this trend was okay, that they didn’t want to “discriminate” against advertisers and that the money of Christians appears to be worth advertising too.

The real question, at least in this woman’s mind, is, what impact does this have on the message of the event? Does the sponsorship compromise the message? Is the sponsorship even necessary at all? If the costs are covered, is it necessary at all? Surely, marketers can slice the demographic up any way they wish and target market via whatever vehicle that is most effective. But the sponsoring of a specific Christian event smacks of more than an group of smart marketers choosing a demographic then going after it. It smells like the Christians working in league with the marketers. It smells like the money changers being let into the temple. While that may be a stretch (the money changes after all were selling sacrifices - a far cry from what Coke is doing. See John 2:12-22 & this article, The Cleansing of the Temple) it just doesn’t feel right, sort of like saying “Coke” is the soda of all Christians or “Delta” is the airline for the Born Again set. Why would any energy be spent even considering this kind of activity? Perhaps instead of sponsoring a Christian Music festival, those same sponsors could step up their support of feeding the poor, showing mercy to the downcast, and building homes for the homeless (Micah 6:8) - those are true directives from God worth sponsoring.

This is an interesting tidbit. Of course, AMD has had an agreement
with IBM for manufacturing and process development R&D since at
least 2003 as this link says here: Link C/net IBM to help AMD on future chips

But what does this mean for the enterprise user? The average
consumer? The telecommunications company considering AMD?

(1) For the enterprise user, it means that AMD’s CPU’s will become
better than they are already. AMD’s team is small in comparison to
Intel’s or even IBM’s PowerPC team. But, it’s smart and has excellent
technology. About the only drawback to the Opteron design is that
memory advances have to be incorporated with the spin of the CPU,
since the DDR memory controller is integrated into the chip. With Sun
giving input (and IBM already doing so) Opteron will improve in the
areas that enterprise customer’s really care about (security,
encryption, high availability, faster and cheaper deployment,
flexible system deployment). This will be a big help to AMD (and to
Sun, since Sun is now using Opteron even more so in it’s server
line).

(2) For the average consumer it means
that they will have a better platform - and a lower
cost point. How so? With Sun’s influence, the chip will get better
than it already is, and, with a better chip comes more adoption by
the major players (though Intel’s market dollars and influence may
still rule the day). With more adoption by the major compute
companies (HP, IBM, etc.) that puts pressure on Intel to make their
excellent products better - and cheaper. And, there will be 32-bit
systems and single core 64-bit systems unloaded onto the market -
making for great deals for Christmas (please see my note on 32-bit vs
64-bit computing here at this link: 32 or 64?

(3) For the telecommunications company
considering AMD instead of Intel, it means that the AMD CPU will
likely be a better choice for telecommunications than before. Many
telecommunications companies run Solaris on SPARC today. With
Solaris being optimized for Opteron
(see info here on Solaris Optimization for Opteron) (and
with Sun’s input and help as noted) this will be an even better
choice for telecommunications companies going forward (and more cost
effective too).