Intel: an expensive many-core future is ahead of us

Intel: an expensive many-core future is ahead of us
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080702-intel-an-expensive-many-core-future-is-ahead-of-us.html

from above: 

Intel has bad news for software developers. It's been hinted at already,
but now the company has stated explicitly: it's not enough for software
developers to be targeting dual, quad, or eight cores. No, the future
holds tens, hundreds, or thousands of cores, and developers are going to
have to bite the bullet and write programs that will scale to such
systems.

.... snip ...

recent posts mentioning multiple core chips:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008b.html#3
on-demand computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008c.html#83
CPU time differences for the
same job
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#89
Berkeley researcher describes
parallel path
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#26
Berkeley researcher describes
parallel path
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#79
Any benefit to programming a
RISC processor by hand?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008f.html#37
Panic in Multicore Land
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008f.html#42
Panic in Multicore Land
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#6
It's Too Darn Hot
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#14
Was CMS multi-tasking?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#61
performance of hardware dynamic
scheduling
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#100
OS X Finder windows vs terminal
window weirdness
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008j.html#4
What is "timesharing" (Re: OS X
Finder windows vs terminal window  weirdness)