Regarding the AMD vs. NVIDIA article, I was really hoping for a more in-depth analysis. There are a lot of differences between the companies (for example, AMD is a CPU/GPU company), the way they tackle the market, their possible future plans. Even the subjects mentioned weren't given any real thought or perspective. For example, paying developers was mentioned but could be given a fuller discussion, the context being that NVIDIA has always been a marketing company foremost. The invent their own standards (CG, CUDA), and they do their best to get as many people to use them. They'd pay universities and developers to use their technologies.
Same for the discussion of physics. The article mentions Havoc, but doesn't mention that Havoc was bought by Intel, obviously making it harder to get the desired cooperation.
I think it's an interesting subject for an in depth article, but that really wasn't it.