An obvious question is whether Rory Read can make the right decisions when designing microprocessors.

The design decisions that lead up to bulldozer were made well before Dirk was CEO. If he hadn't forced the delay of 45nm bulldozer it would have been even more of a disappointment. The blame for that, as well as they delay of 65nm which threw off everything, rests on Hector

Bud, with all your due respect, can you be more specific in your criticism. Honestly, I did like the read - not too deep, just easy reading for the holiday. It is just an editorial in an IT website that basically touched on prior editorials. You need to acknowledge this fact before you began reading, set your expectations accordingly, and try to get some insight that your sociology and/or social-economic prism does not allow you to see.
I work in a business world and I do have masters in that field and I do not come to xbitlabs or go to any other IT website to read about business. However, I do find, and appreciate, some of the industry insight, which on the surface might look very unorthodox and/or rudimentary, but because we, all (most of) the business people think similarly, sometimes overlook or do not identify at all. Therefore, read this article not as if it was written in the national sociological journal, but as if it was written on the xbitlabs.com, because it was. Hopefully, you will get more than just pure entertainment from it.

What does sociological science / research have to due with an article on trends in technology and the associated technology industry.

Sociological science is total bullshit and should be dismissed, its almost a complete waste of time and is constantly proven to be wrong.

Only an economist would possibly have more insight into the issues discussed in this article.

Oh, that is total bullshit. If you are a student of economics, then should know that sociology and economics have a different objective to research. It is not proven false, because that would be better sociology.

The problem is the dominance, the hostile and exclusive attitude by the economists and the law school, mostly by these two groups, to all other science. You are everywhere, in the government, the media and on the top of the wage hierarchy. Don't you think you've had enough of influence already? And if it's not you two groups, then it is the psychologists, the third officially recognized science. You think that the world solution is law (maximum prosecution as a solution to the criminal type)/economics (free market)/psychology (the definition of mental illness just depend on the current values). And like is wrote, this is written by an IT specialist, who can only do worse. The IT industry is coasting the economists for social kudos.

While I cannot agree with you more on the sociology as a science, I am very disappointed by the depth of your analysis. I sounded as if you pulled it off your ass. It's like one of those clichés the world is controlled by Jews or masons. Please tell me you do not think that all economist and layers got together and said we going to rule the world and will teach that to all the law and economics students so we can continue our rule. Is it true for all the layers - my dumb traffic attorney I use cause he's cheaper than me going to the court or a small town attorney in a third world country - or is it just as small number of Ivy League - in which case, I should be fine with my local judge who went to UM or EMU? Law exists to ensure that we can do business - in both senses: for-profit and personal/social - without worry about people that try to gain on the system. Remember law is not only for the criminal type but it can also be used to resolve disputes.
I am running out of time so I will be very short. Saying economics is bad because it promotes free market, is the same as saying Sandy Bridge is bad because it is so much better than anything else on sell out there. I am not going to dive into explaining why, but it will only take you reading a few introductory chapters of economics to understand why.

There's another bullshitter. I get the feeling that you just want to make me feel inferior, and you think that you can get away with it. Under the innocent veil of this discussion of course. It is about the way how you talk about innocent issues. I'm worried about your manners and schemes, and how easily they are passed in today's society.

Sorry, I did not want to hurt your feelings! You came up with some empty or irrelevent claims, I asked some basic questions to test the accuracy of your claims and you came up calling me names. Am I the bullshitter?