Slashdot Mirror


Rare Earth Restrictions To Raise Hard Drive Cost

MojoKid writes "Multiple manufacturers in the IT industry have been keeping a wary eye on China's decision to cut back on rare earth exports and the impact it may have on component prices. There have been reports that suggest we'll see that decision hit the hard drive industry this year, with HDD prices trending upwards an estimated 5-10 percent depending on capacity. Although rare earth magnets are only a small part of a hard drive's total cost, China cut exports last year by 40 percent, which drove pricing for these particular components up an estimated 20-30x. China currently controls 97 percent of the rare earth elements market for popular metals like neodymium, cerium, yttrium and ytterbium."

254 comments

  1. The obvious first question... by suso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that this article doesn't touch on at all is does this affect Solid State Drives (SSDs)? Probably not because they don't use magnets. So this will just speed up the jump to SSDs. You could be the cynic and think that somehow China decided to raise rare earth prices to drive SSDs, but I kinda doubt that Hard drives in general make up a significant part of that decision.

    1. Re:The obvious first question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDD's still make up a decent portion of plain storage drives. I've been looking to get more for my comp and might get one now if prices are going to go up.

    2. Re:The obvious first question... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Small fast SSDs complement, but don't replace large slow HDDs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:The obvious first question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the thing, it's bullshit fake shortages to get people to buy into stupid expensive SSD garbage that really isn't that much faster when all is said and done. The overhead and the fact that people generally reinstall their system to put their OS on an SSD when that system before was probably filled with gunk gives people an artificial perception of speed.

      Plus the damn things are still at 2001 HDD price/GB levels with no sign of any significant movement to anything close to fair. Probably some scheme to get people to run the latest thin client rehash scam ("cloud computing").

      To hell with modern bullshit, garbage technology.

      Posting anon because you know someone will take offense and mod me down even though everyone subconsciously knows it's true.

    4. Re:The obvious first question... by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      actually, you're 100% wrong.

      The restrictions are to try to get high tech industry to develop in China. There are no restrictions of use of rare earth metals in China, just the export of the raw materials. It's a good way to ensure high tech manufacturing does develop. Essentially China can hold the world to ransom due their highly developed and underpaid RE mining industry. It's much cheaper to refine RE minerals in China due to lack of industrial relations and environmental laws.

      Hell, even Australian RE companies are hesitant to set up refining here due to the massive amounts of radioactive waste from refining RE minerals.

      China are even buying up large stakes in Australian RE mining companies just to gain even more of an edge. Chinalco attempted to take over Australia's largest RE miner and was blocked by the ACCC in no small part due to China's stance on RE exports.

      Maybe look a bit deeper rather than just looking at company profits. China are all about bringing jobs onshore and having the upper hand globally.

      Aside from this, very happy I bought 4x 2GB HDDs recently for my new array, in before the price rise!

    5. Re:The obvious first question... by Nimey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      5-10% isn't that much. Spinning discs will still be a lot cheaper than even the cheapest SSDs.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:The obvious first question... by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Spot on. Hard drive makers have always been keen on keeping the drive suspension (the really precise and expensive part of the head) manufactured in the West. You send that over to China and you can kiss your company goodbye long term. Both US and Australia have plenty of materials to go back into the rare earth business. There may be something to having a strategic stockpile to keep the market stable.

    7. Re:The obvious first question... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      5-10% isn't that much. Spinning discs will still be a lot cheaper than even the cheapest SSDs.

      Yeah, and 4 megabytes of RAM used to cost over $100.

      Point is SSDs are still the "blu-ray" of hard drives out there, commanding their own fancy premium. Once they're pretty much commonplace, they'll be on par with traditional spinning platters (especially considering this article pointing out an increase in costs for traditional designs)

    8. Re:The obvious first question... by suso · · Score: 2

      I remember 8MB of RAM costing $300 back in 1996 or so and an article came out in PC Magazine or something called "Why RAM prices won't go down", then a month or two later, they dropped through the floor.

    9. Re:The obvious first question... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There will be no jump to SSDs. The price of entry into the market is too high ($25 billion for a new fabrication plant), and supply is constantly being outstripped by growing demand. Cost of production is also not falling fast enough. The industry expects to transition to a new and more efficient technology by 2014 or 2015, whatever that may be.

    10. Re:The obvious first question... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2

      2 GB HDDs huh? You must be ecstatic.

    11. Re:The obvious first question... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget densities are bound to double sometime soon. We've been on 2-3 TB drives for 2 years now, with manufacturers holding back on releasing the latest platter density advances into the market. Once the new tech comes out $/GB (should we use TB now?) will come down significantly, even with a 5-10% premium.

    12. Re:The obvious first question... by Lanteran · · Score: 2

      Have you ever actually used an SSD? The speed is quite noticeable, coming from a fresh install of arch on a 7200RPM to a SATAII SSD. The reason they cost so much is because flash is a bit harder to scale up than magnetic drives, which can come for pennies on the gigabyte. They also are far less prone to failure than mechanical drives, containing no moving parts. So SSDs are perfect for both embedded systems and smaller systems, and they should be complimented by a TB drive when more space is needed. The only mechanical drives that even come close in speed to SSDs that I know of are 15000RPMs, which are as expensive as hell.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    13. Re:The obvious first question... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      They'll never be commonplace. They're just too expensive and difficult to make. The industry plans to transition to something else by the middle of the decade.

    14. Re:The obvious first question... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I expect they're also waiting for UEFI to achieve more market penetration, since plain old BIOSes are limited to 2TB drives on account of the old Master Boot Record's limitations. The 3TB drives are the first iteration to need UEFI and as such are useful for probing what the market will do.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    15. Re:The obvious first question... by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Point is that we don't know /when/ SSDs are going to reach that magical point, but it'll certainly be after we see the effects of China tightening up the rare-earth supply.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    16. Re:The obvious first question... by Nimey · · Score: 4, Informative

      And about time, too. Prior to that RAM had been expensive forever. 4MB of RAM had been $200 for at least three years before the prices started going down.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    17. Re:The obvious first question... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Hell I remember when 64K cost a cool $150,000, and you had to build another wing for it. We had a System 3 at the plant to do the payroll. Spent many an evening with my dad feeding punch-cards into the machine.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:The obvious first question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking you're off a few years as when I bought ram in 1999 it was near US$100 per MB!!

    19. Re:The obvious first question... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      it's bullshit fake shortages

      What's worse is that a $5 jump in the price of a hard drive will mean computers will go up by about $200, and manufacturers (the few that are left) will say that they have to raise prices because "of the rise in component cost".

      By my calculations, by the year 2015 there will be two corporations in every sector. Two oil companies, two beverage companies, two computer manufacturers, two banks. And two by two they will board the ark and leave the rest of the fucking human race in servitude. Just think of the savings in input costs! Profits will soar. And there will 1000 owners and the rest of us will be renters.

      Anybody want to bet that's a more accurate prediction than anything we'll hear in next year's election season?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:The obvious first question... by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Also it might make research in recycling old hard drives more of an option. The rare earth are probably mostly in the magnetic heads. I dunno about the platters.

    21. Re:The obvious first question... by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      And yet, not all applications need drives that fast. For example, my movie collection does not need 100MB/s read speed. I do not need a 64GB SSD for the movie collection. If my collection is small enough to fit in 64GB then I could buy a used 80GB hard drive and save lots of money.

    22. Re:The obvious first question... by suso · · Score: 1

      Maybe you did. That doesn't mean that you didn't get ripped off. I had a server with 160MB of RAM in June of 1999, that would have cost $16,000 at those prices, which it didn't:

      and I even have proof, read the entry for June 9th

      I know I didn't pay $16,000 for the ram, or even $1600. Maybe $1000. I simply couldn't have afforded that back then. So ram must have been down to $10/MB or less by 1999.

    23. Re:The obvious first question... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      I guess i'm getting old, twenty years ago i was trying to save up to buy ram when it was $100 a meg. Ah those where the days of bat files and trying to get the most out of your 640k. The days of mosaic and a slip connection to canada's first internet connected CEGEP.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    24. Re:The obvious first question... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I still do not get why current BIOSes cannot be made compatible with larger drives.

      Now, granted, the MBR has the 2TB limit, but BIOS does not require that MBR. What I mean is, bios just loads the first (zeroth?) sector of the hard drive to memory and jumps to that location in memory. It does not care what is in it. From then the CPU executes whatever instructions were in that first sector.

      Also, while boot code and the partition table are currently on the same sector, there is no particular need why they have to be so and why the partition table has to be in that format. As long as the OS and the boot code inside the first sector supports it the partition table can be whatever you want.

    25. Re:The obvious first question... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... because SSD's are made out of semiconductor devices, which don't themselves use rare earth elements? ummmmm...

    26. Re:The obvious first question... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1, Funny
      What do you mean "kiss your company good bye"? Don't you mean "relocate your manufacturing base to the lowest-cost adequate-technical-capability region that you can find, to the benefit of your profit margin and shareholders"?

      Remember, this is not a "command economy" but a "free market", and in these "free market" economies, corporations are encouraged (if not legally required) to do anything they can to maximise profits for their shareholders, not to pay an empty piss-bucket worth of attention to petty-minded parochial desires of employees.

      Doesn't it feel liberating to experience what the rest of the world has been feeling for decades? I did SO enjoy being treated as a "fucking tartan arab" by Septic Tanks when I started in the international labour market, and it is just so distressing to now see the Septics complaining about being treated like unimportant commodity labourers.

      There is a word for the emotion I'm feeling at the moment, but it's German and I wouldn't like you to feel that I was trying to confuse you.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re:The obvious first question... by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      This is as marvelous as their other bone headed move with Taiwan. It will spur the development of MRAM and other technologies for SSDs. It will spur manufacturing to move to one of several hundred countries that are not psychically traumatized by a small island that sneered at them and went independent.

      Even Britain didn't go that loony over America they went loony over .. I'm not sure what.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    28. Re:The obvious first question... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with SSDs are the failure rates on those are frankly insane, so bad that Atwood at Coding Horror thinks they should be judged on a hot/crazy scale as in how much are you willing to lose and how much money/downtime are you willing to put up with for the speed. He still recommends them but then again this is a guy that recommends spending over $400 on a pair of headphones with another couple of hundred on an amp to drive them.

      This of course doesn't even figure in the facts that SSDs are frankly tiny little suckers and that one of any decent size would frankly be several orders of magnitude higher than the price increase on HDDs. Hell in my own case my basic WinXP/7 dual boot is taking up probably close to 200Gb simply because with 3Tb I never have to give a crap. I don't even want to know what an SSD big enough to hold that would cost, not to mention the 500Gb+ in movies, music, games, and audio projects I have on board.

      No, frankly the answer is quite simple and something we should have been doing for a long time and would have been if it weren't for traitors in congress giving tax breaks to those that offshore so they have NO penalty for exporting vital industry. what we should do is fire the mines back up in NM and treat it as what it is, vital to our national interest. it should be nationalized (I believe We, The People already own the land) and Americans should be put to work mining that ore. Too many electronics require those metals to have our industry cut off at the knees by the Chinese, and Lord knows there are plenty of Americans that can use the work.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    29. Re:The obvious first question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We won't see SSD's replace moving parts hard drives anytime soon:
      1) Enterprise use - In a high wear environment (think google), an array of 128 hard drives isn't going to be replaced with less SSD's since the wear is multiplied over the number of drives in a RAID configuration. Moving parts drives wear equally and tend to wear out based on power-on-hours not individual writes. When SSD's cost 1/10th the price of conventional hard drives, maybe someone might do this.
      2) High-reuse drives in conventional PC's and laptops - Temporary files, Swap partitions/files, idiotic programmers who change one byte on a file (here's looking at you last-access-time) on every touch. More re-design has to go into SSD's and OS/Programming habits before SSD's are adopted for anything other than high-speed-read-only systems.

      The main obstacle for any solid-state adoption to replace a hard drive lies with increasing RAM in systems so that the hard drive is never used for swap or temporary files, and logging goes straight to conventional drives or is thrown away.

      I think we're all looking at this wrong anyway. We should be looking at SSD's as partial-replacements for installing software. eg, instead of installing windows/linux/MacOS to the SSD and all the software hap-hazardly onto the drive, instead the OS shadows a copy of the program code to the SSD in the background and always uses it instead of the regular hard drive until it's updated. This is much more efficient than defragmenting the moving-parts drive since fragmentation doesn't matter for SSD.

    30. Re:The obvious first question... by arekq · · Score: 1

      Can you elaborate? What kind of technology does that use?

    31. Re:The obvious first question... by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Of course a company can maximise *short term* profits by moving stuff to countries with cheaper labour. Of course, every time they lay of employees they also lay of customers, so in the *long term* there will be no one able to afford their products any more. Because the "we have to find cheaper labour" on the production side leads to an "we have to find cheaper products" on the consumer side.

      After all, the same way the company doesn't want to pay high labour cost in the US, the customers sure as hell don't want to pay for high CEO and "shareholder revenue" cost in the US, and will move to buy more stuff completely made in China, without those additional expenses.

    32. Re:The obvious first question... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      China is trying to create inflation in the US by forcing prices up. Inflation is the tried and tested way out of a recession like the one we are experiencing. Cut government spending, push inflation up, get the deficit down. Europe needs to do more of that too.

      In the 90s China made a decision to actively manage the US economy by lending it lots of money and keeping the Yuan weak so that Chinese goods would be cheap. The loans mean that China effectively owns large parts of the US economy and the exports allow them to do things like this to increase or decrease US inflation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:The obvious first question... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Ask the industry experts. But SSD is reaching its limits. 20 nm manufacturing processes can't get much smaller without sacrificing the lifespan and hardware integrity of NAND flash.

    34. Re:The obvious first question... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I think SSD as a fast cache in front of HDD is still sounds like a great way to use them.

      ZFS supports this, some RAID-array, some RAID-cards do this now and there are a number of other projects which try to do at the filesystem/OS layer like ZFS but those are not completely production ready for everyone/everything.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    35. Re:The obvious first question... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Silicon is just sand, right ? That is hardly rare ;-)

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    36. Re:The obvious first question... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      What's worse is that a $5 jump in the price of a hard drive will mean computers will go up by about $200, and manufacturers (the few that are left) will say that they have to raise prices because "of the rise in component cost".

      That's because people don't react well to creeping prices, which is rather natural in a society where wages and inflation is slowly increasing the cost of everything. You use the excuse available to raise the price and lump all that "natural" increase into it as well.

      You can particularly see this with grocery products. That 1kg big bag of fries you used to buy? It'll be 900g, 800g, 700g, 600g, 500g and then they'll introduce a new 1kg supersize bag. All to keep prices "stable" in the eyes of the customers, because they're paying less attention to that than price hikes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    37. Re:The obvious first question... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Gigabyte's found a way to bodge their BIOSes to support GUID boot records, so I'm guessing the problem is that plain BIOS doesn't support that.

      The industry's decided to use GUID records, so that's the standard which must be supported, and it's natively part of UEFI.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    38. Re:The obvious first question... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Anecdata: in '98 I bought 8MB of RAM for ~$60. That was a 72-pin SIMM.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    39. Re:The obvious first question... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I have 2 TB full of movies and music on a USB 2.0 external I move around with as I need to, and yeah, it's slow as dogshit, 5400 RPM over USB ain't ever gonna be very fast, but with media files what difference does it make?

      I don't know anyone that's completely eschewed regular HDDs for SSDs, and even with these rare earth elements becoming harder to get, I doubt the price is going to come anywhere near SSDs enough to encourage mainstream adoption anyway. SSDs are great, but they've got a ways to go before their appeal goes beyond the fringe.

    40. Re:The obvious first question... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Circuit city while not exact shows exactly what happens when you consider the short term profits over long term thinking.

      My dates may be off but they are close at least in rough timeline.

      Jan 2008 seeing that sales where off the Board of directors gets a brilliant idea of saving money by firing the top earning employees who aren't management. Comminsions, are expensive on those 3,000 people.

      Summer 2008 the board gives themselves 10 million dollars bonuses for saving Circuit city $8 million in expenses.

      Jan 2009 circuit City board announces they had the worst year ever. sales are off by some really high number. This only surprises investors, and the board but not one of the 3,000 top salesmen(women) that they fired the previous year.

      summer 2009 Circuit city folds.

      Short term profits, to excessive Board compensation packages , doomed that company.

      Just because it is cheaper doesn't mean it is better. With the current costs of fuel many companies are bringing manufacturing back to the USA as it is becoming more impractical to use the cheap labor and ship it 20,000 miles.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    41. Re:The obvious first question... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You're wrong on failures part. Modern hard drives have far more logic system (controller) failures then mechanical ones when properly installed, especially on desktop where they're not stressed nearly as much as on servers.

      On the other hand, SSDs have significantly worse failure rate on logic part, as their controllers have to be extremely complex in comparison with HDD ones. This problem will likely be ironed out with age, as they get better but at the moment, there are actual serious bugs found in controllers on drives in retail in addition to increased failure rate.

      That said, on desktop the failure rate is probably not meaningful, as drives generally tend to die slower then desktops get updated.

      Absolutely no argument on speed though, SSDs beat HDDs hands down in that department. In the end, it's price and slightly better reliability vs speed.

    42. Re:The obvious first question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They'll never be commonplace. They're just too expensive and difficult to make. The industry plans to transition to something else by the middle of the decade.

      Can you elaborate? What kind of technology does that use?

      I don't know. Ask the industry experts. But SSD is reaching its limits. 20 nm manufacturing processes can't get much smaller without sacrificing the lifespan and hardware integrity of NAND flash.

      Frankly, the fact that you can't even tell us the first thing about this "something else" the industry supposedly plans on transitioning to suggests that this part- if not all of your post- is worthless.

      For all we know, it could be based on a misinterpretation of something half-remembered by you from an article a couple of years back that turned out to be some industry guy stating what he'd *like* to happen or briefly mentioning some esoteric pie-in-the-sky technology. Ot it might not be, who knows. There's not even enough detail there to make an educated guess if you're talking out of your arse... although the complete lack of detail suggests that you *are* talking out of your arse anyway!

      I do know that if the technology is so esoteric you can't even remember anything about it, it's incredibly unlikely that the whole storage industry is going to have transitioned to it in five years time!

    43. Re:The obvious first question... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      1. China lends the US 1 billion dollars.

      2. China encourages the US to reduce the value of the dollar (inflation) by 50% and US complies by doubling the money supply.

      3. The US pays china back their 1 billion which is now only worth 500 million pre-inflation dollars and and half as many yuan. For instance, pre-inflation 1 USD = 8 CNY, post-inflation 1 USD = 4 CNY.

      4. Profit, but for whom? Not for China. Inflation is good if you are a debtor, but very bad if you are a creditor. And the longer it takes the debtor to pay the worse it gets.

      The last thing China wants is US inflation. The US is quite keen on it at the moment though. It's one way of reducing the national debt. It's also an invisible tax. Their favorite kind.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    44. Re:The obvious first question... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I still do not get why current BIOSes cannot be made compatible with larger drives.

      They are, unless they try to do "clever" things (Intel fakeRAID, I'm looking at you). However, Windows (surprise!) doesn't support booting from GPT under normal BIOS.

      Isn't it nice to know that, even in the year 2011, Microsoft is still working hard to hold back progress?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    45. Re:The obvious first question... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Does Windows support other hard drives with GPT under normal BIOS? If so, then I do not see the problem. I would not need a 3TB drive as a system drive, I'd use a smaller one, either a fast HDD or a SSD.

    46. Re:The obvious first question... by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Kiss it goodbye as in your IP will get stolen and you'll have to contend with people knocking off your stuff. Let's be clear, the circuit board, platers, and casing are made and assembled overseas (Singapore, China, whatever). Because most things can be made just about anywhere the actually head suspension is made in the West. They don't want the IP stolen.

    47. Re:The obvious first question... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Profit, but for whom? Not for China. Inflation is good if you are a debtor, but very bad if you are a creditor. And the longer it takes the debtor to pay the worse it gets.

      There is no way in Hell the United States will ever pay its debts; it couldn't do it even if it was managed competently, rather than by a bunch of seniles with delusions of grandeur and no interest to do anything except send money to their home states, common good be damned. China knows this too. So why lend to the United States?

      To put it bluntly, China wants to rule the world, and are smart enough to go about it without needless bloodshed. US hegemony is over, but they're still a major player which has only very recently lost its way; by lending to US, China not only prevents the chaos that usually results the collapse of an empire, and might gain a powerful ally, should they manage to turn US back towards favoring industry over unproductive financial sector. The money lent is lost, of course, but it's a good investment nonetheless.

      The main threat in this picture is the somewhat lacking respect for human or worker rights in China; then again, the US hasn't given a crap about either in its foreign policy. So, it could go either way, as far as whether this change of rulers will benefit the world is concerned.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    48. Re:The obvious first question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Score:4, Interesting", my arse.

      As I said elsewhere, if you can't even tell us the first thing about the technology the industry will supposedly be transitioning to in 3 or 4 years time, it suggests that you're talking out of your backside.

    49. Re:The obvious first question... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Does Windows support other hard drives with GPT under normal BIOS?

      Yes.

      If so, then I do not see the problem. I would not need a 3TB drive as a system drive, I'd use a smaller one, either a fast HDD or a SSD.

      It wouldn't be a problem if Windows didn't still use drive letters as the basis of its filesystem organization. However, it does, and so relocating the user folder to a larger drive is pretty much impossible.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    50. Re:The obvious first question... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      1. You can mount a partition as a folder in a NTFS partition (like it is on Linux).
      2. When you install Windows you can specify that the user profiles be somewhere else other than "C:\Documents and Settings"
      3. You can move the Documents and Settings folder after installation, but it's difficult.
      4. You can move the profile of a single user to another folder/drive
      5. On a single user systems (and a lot of PCs now are single user) there is no need to do any of that - just save the files to another drive.

    51. Re:The obvious first question... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      And the manufacturing base of this "Circuit City" shop was?

      Retail is a different business to manufacture, which is a different business to ... [lather, rinse, repeat] ad nauseam

      My point was about manufacturing industries. Retail may have parallels, but I know almost nothing about retail.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    52. Re:The obvious first question... by phozz+bare · · Score: 1

      Don't joke. These things are smaller than a VHS tape and can store *two* movies!

    53. Re:The obvious first question... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      So ... you reverse-engineer your competitor's best stuff, work out where they're going to go wrong in trying to follow you and develop something that would lead them into a blind alley. Sell *that* to the Chinese (at a profit), in the sure and certain knowledge that it'll be copied and sold cheap ... to you competitors.

      Five years later : your competitors have shut down their R&D department, because of the "good stuff" they're getting from China ; you've picked up their good staff, cheaper than you'd otherwise have paid, and you've got their good will too ; and the Chinese have no idea how to go from what they copied of yours (deliberate flaws and blind alleys included) to compete with your next generation equipment.

      Hey, this is business - those wimpish "all is fair" restrictions that apply to "love" and "war" don't apply here.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    54. Re:The obvious first question... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You can mount a partition as a folder in a NTFS partition (like it is on Linux).

      How?

      When you install Windows you can specify that the user profiles be somewhere else other than "C:\Documents and Settings"

      No you can't, or at least my install process didn't give that option.

      You can move the Documents and Settings folder after installation, but it's difficult.

      How?

      You can move the profile of a single user to another folder/drive

      How?

      On a single user systems (and a lot of PCs now are single user) there is no need to do any of that - just save the files to another drive.

      Indeed you can. And I have. But it would be so much more convenient to simply tell Windows to use the other drive (actually the second virtual drive in a RAID10 pack) as "extra space" for the main drive.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    55. Re:The obvious first question... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      You can mount a partition as a folder in a NTFS partition (like it is on Linux).

      How?

      Computer Management ->Disk Management -> Right click on the partition you want to mount ->Change drive letters and paths->Add->Mount in the following empty NTFS folder

      When you install Windows you can specify that the user profiles be somewhere else other than "C:\Documents and Settings"

      No you can't, or at least my install process didn't give that option.

      No, but nLite lets you customize this, as well as other settings (for example my temp directory is C:\Temp and not c:\Documents and Settings\user name\Local Settings\Temp)

      You can move the profile of a single user to another folder/drive

      How?

      http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;236621

    56. Re:The obvious first question... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      In 1999 it was fairly common for new PCs to have 64-128MB of ram. New PCs did not cgst $6,400 - $12,800+ at the time.

    57. Re:The obvious first question... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What the hell you talking about? There must be easily a dozen manufacturers of SSDs, and I keep on seeing now ones popping up all the time. Meanwhile, there's what, four HDD manufacturers left? And I doubt we'll have any new ones enter the market.

    58. Re:The obvious first question... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Actually there are only 5 major ones. The rest are tiny. Samsung has something like 34% of the market, with the top 3 owning 70 or 80%. And remember, Samsung corralled a bunch of LCD manufacturers into price-fixing and was fined $3 billion for it. In fact the DOJ began an anti-trust investigation into Samsung for NAND flash prices but dropped it: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aWgWSqhs_Jk0 If you read about the recent revelations at the SEC, it's not hard to see corruption occurring at the DOJ as well.

    59. Re:The obvious first question... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Define "insane"...

      From my understanding of it (which may be incorrect), while SSD's seem to fail a bit more, they do so gradually, over time, at the expense of capacity.

      Where as normal physically spinning HDD, tend to suddenly and catastrophically fail, losing all data.

      Anyway for what they are currently used for (system drives), and their current capacity (less than 320GB, most being in the 60-120GB) range, they are absurdly easy to back up, who cares if it fails (provided it is still under warranty), replace it and copy your backup back onto it. However backing up those 4 TB of videos on normal HDD can be a mite more difficult.

      Anyway, I do agree, that in terms of this article it is moot, as 10% of 70$ bucks is 77$, whereas the SSD will cost you 200$ or whatever. Its an apples to oranges kind of thing. Two different things, used differently.

    60. Re:The obvious first question... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      With SSDs it kind of depends. If it is a controller failure, you lose the whole damn thing. If it is a wear problem, yes, you don't lose access to the data, just the ability to write to the sector. Many people also seem to think that MLC = SSD, instead of realizing that SLC >>>> MLC, and MLC = crap.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    61. Re:The obvious first question... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Interesting, new to me.

      Here is an article I goggled that seems to explain it pretty well.

      http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ssd-value-performance,review-1455-5.html

      The difficulty is I just did a 5 min review of what is out there for SSD, and only OCZ and Intel seem to like to put that in there specifications (none in corsair that I checked), though that could have just been the online store, however every single one that did was MLC, so I am not sure how available SLC is really.

      Though there was a neat chart in the toms article that basically shows that SSD failure rate seems to be pretty heavily correlated to capacity size, where the smaller the device, the longer it lasts. So buying the cheaper, smaller unit will actually last longer, so I guess that it just goes to show you should buy within your means.

    62. Re:The obvious first question... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Most of the manufacturers stopped selling SLC because the cost was so high that they did not sell well. I do however have at home a Intel X-25 40GB SLC, and it is blazing fast, still running after 3 years ( I think), but it did cost quite a bit back then.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. A solution. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's okay. With the economy where it is, we can replace the magnets with interns.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:A solution. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      And interns work for free. Their "payment" is in the form of job experience they can put down on their resume'. Don't like it? There's a million others waiting to fill your shoes. The level of intern exploitation is pretty bad.

      Of course, you get what you pay for. When a company goes after the intern workforce, chances are the company is already financially unstable.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:A solution. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you got your info from, but we and (IIRC all) others in my industry pay our interns. Way better than H1Bs.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:A solution. by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      And interns work for free.

      Intern does not mean "work for free". I, and many others, were paid quite well as interns at an automotive factory years ago while in college.

    4. Re:A solution. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Many industries do, but at least some industries don't. There are some legal issues around not paying, though.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    5. Re:A solution. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Or you could open mines in the US and actually start producing something again instead of just consuming.

      (obviously not JUST produce or JUST consume. Of course you do both and will always do both. But produce more.)

    6. Re:A solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only Yttrium and Cerium I ever saw was in Scrabble.

    7. Re:A solution. by svick · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you never played System Shock 2.

    8. Re:A solution. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If we did that (after the 10 year ramp up period) China would just undercut the prices and drive them out of business (again). They are currently putting forth efforts to reopen several mines/processing plants, but according to previous Slashdot stories, it isn't an overnight process.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:A solution. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Well, unless you accept that it's a global economy and that you may have to compete with China. By salaries or whatever means.

      Sure you can say "we won't" but well, guess what happens in the long run?

      Borrowing to be able to spend as if everything was just fine instead of competing and earning something can't work forever.

      All this shit about deflating all currencies to get away from debt is so freaking retarded to.

      Also you could open them "just to fail", as in the mere fact that you are working on it may force China to raise exports and lower prices which will be a win regardless of whatever the mines can compete or not. Mines die (and you save resources) and China lower prices = win. China keep high prices and mines give the resources = win.

      No?

  3. Japanese undersea megadeposit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/Pacific-Ocean-Seabed-Rich-in-Rare-Earth-Minerals.html
    http://www.businessinsider.com/gigantic-rare-earth-deposit-found-in-the-pacific-2011-7
    + many other google links, massive quantities were found in the ocean, so there are plenty of other places to get them from.

    1. Re:Japanese undersea megadeposit by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Not for nothing, but Japan may be somewhat leery of processing REs in light of their recent brush with nuclear materials. At the very least, it could be politically risky.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  4. Too important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rest of the world (read: US) does not have rare earth mineral (which aren't rare at all, actually) mines because China has a long history of simply lowering prices until all competing mines have gone out of business. China considers that having a monopolistic source for rare earths gives them substantial manufacturing advantages for thousands of products, including florescent lights, medical supplies, and disk drives.

    IMHO all of these products, including motors for hybrid vehicles, are too important to allow China to trivial blackmail the rest of the world at their pleasure. All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

    1. Re:Too important by kurt555gs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Right now Hybrid vehicles either use brushless DC or permeant magnet excited AC motors. Both need rare earth magnets and neither are as powerful or efficient for their application as switched reluctance motors which do not use magnets at all. If the electric auto industry was innovative, they would all be using switched reluctance motors and China could eat their rare earth magnets.

      My guess is a swamp of patents by Toyota that keep them in the dark ages so they can protect their IP.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    2. Re:Too important by number11 · · Score: 1

      All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

      New mines do not open "overnight". It takes years of development to open a new mine.

      If there are old mines that have simply been mothballed, those could probably be restored to production pretty fast.

    3. Re:Too important by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      China is pretty much copying the Wal-Mart model, absorb losses until your competitors go out of business, then jack up the price.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese aren't investing like crazy in mines in the US(and other places). Not only are a lot of their industries dependent upon them, but with the yen being insanely strong right now they would be insane not to take advantage of that and get mining rights on the cheap.

    4. Re:Too important by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      there's mines in the US that have been closed, yes. "fast" is relative; the one major mine i recall hearing about was exploring reopening, and "few years" pops to mind as the timeline for getting it back to production

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    5. Re:Too important by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't want any kind of 'reluctance' motor in my car, switched or otherwise.

      When I step on the pedal, I want the damn thing to go, not to complain about the traffic or the pollution or how much weight I've stuffed in the car.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Too important by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      The EV industry is far from innovative. Their drive trains are ridiculously inefficient. All they've done is taken out a gas engine and replaced it with a battery. They should be able to achieve twice the mileage from the same battery life as they get now. I don't understand why no one is willing to innovate.

    7. Re:Too important by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      Switched Reluctance motors are the future in many industries with automotive being one of the most important and aviation being another. They have the most torque to weight of any motor (including rare earth magnet brushless DC) and more importantly have both enormous starting torque and high speed. This means no transmission is necessary as is now with both AC and DC designs. The element that has been holding them back is processing speed of the drive cpu's and the electronics themselves. Right now there are "notchy" at startup. With faster hardware and more sophisticated software this issue can be overcome. I have seen some experimental "drives" using a TI chip that has both an ARM based CPU and a DSP on the same chip. When the software catches up, many industries that now use current motor designs will be able to use the switched reluctance type motor to tremendous advantage. It's the future. And they don't use magnets.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    8. Re:Too important by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what fuel efficiency regulation is meant to encourage?

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    9. Re:Too important by MechaStreisand · · Score: 2

      Are you saying that the automotive industry is... reluctant to switch to those motors?

      *puts on sunglasses*

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:Too important by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Fuel efficiency has no effect on EV's since they don't use fuel...

    11. Re:Too important by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Article I read explained that specific RPM ranges the particular motor is tuned for, a rare earth motor can have a higher torque because you get a certain amount of field strength 'for free' with the field generated by the rare earth. To get that same field strength with switched reluctance, you need to add more weight in the form of thicker wires so you can use more current.

    12. Re:Too important by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The element that has been holding them back is processing speed of the drive cpu's and the electronics themselves. Right now there are "notchy" at startup.

      The processing and control requirements look no greater than that needed for vector controlled AC drives and those have been around for at least 20 years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_torque_control

      With some type of position encoding, I am certain even a 20 MIPS PIC microcontroller could handle it with appropriate hardware. If they are having performance problems with ARM, then they are using the wrong programming language.

      Modified SIN wave stepper drivers that compensate for the nonlinear inductance to prevent cogging have been around for a long time as well but they are only used in the highest performance applications. Switched reluctance motors are just a more extreme case.

    13. Re:Too important by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Or more weight in the form of more wire requiring a higher voltage. Rare earth PM motors may have a power to weight and volume advantage but they are not going to be significantly more efficient.

    14. Re:Too important by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Just what I read, I'm not an electrical engineer. But it isn't at all surprising that there's tradeoffs, which is why we use rare earth motors so often right now. Switched reluctance does sound like the ultimate way to do electric motors, however. Even better if the wire in one is made with superconductors.

    15. Re:Too important by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Ok, yes yes very clever. I'm talking about hybrids obviously. I'm no engineer, but I'd hazard that increasing fuel efficiency of hybrids would require innovation in the electric... bits.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    16. Re:Too important by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but not in terms of improving the drivetrain, which is pathetically old and inefficient in current EVs (right now all they do is take out a gasoline engine and replace it with a giant battery), or encouraging higher capacity batteries.

  5. Background on Rare Earth Shortage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Two background articles on rare earth shortage:
    http://www.tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=2011/mass_quantities
    http://www.tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=RE_shortage

  6. Yet another obvious solution by xkr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The rest of the world (read: US) does not have rare earth mineral (which aren't rare at all, actually) mines because China has a long history of simply lowering prices until all competing mines have gone out of business. China considers that having a monopolistic source for rare earths gives them substantial manufacturing advantages for thousands of products, including florescent lights, medical supplies, and disk drives.

    IMHO all of these products, including motors for hybrid vehicles, are too important to allow China to trivial blackmail the rest of the world at their pleasure. All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

    --
    I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
    1. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, China acts strategically in China's best interest. If the USA and other nations do not act in their own best interest, then China will become far dominant. That is not a bad thing. May the bet nation win. I think China will be that nation. If your own system cannot compete, then don't bitch: change it so that it CAN compete.

    2. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Yes, China acts strategically in China's best interest. If the USA and other nations do not act in their own best interest, then China will become far dominant. That is not a bad thing. May the bet nation win. I think China will be that nation. If your own system cannot compete, then don't bitch: change it so that it CAN compete.

      Incomplete. Nations may evolve in a sense, but they also benefit from world stability and the improvement of their community. The short-term selfish act may not generate the best result in the long term.

      Look up Nash Equilibrium.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    3. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

      No, the market price by itself would support opening or reopening of rare earth mines. What you may need is a waiver from the EPA.

      Rare earth mining is problematic because even 'high quality' ore is very dilute. Vast quantities of material have to be processed in order to obtain any product. The primary extractive processes aren't all that polluting. The mines use a combination of physical process (magnetic separation, water separation) to concentrate the material to about 50% purity. Getting it from 50% to pure metal, however, requires quite a bit of energy and the use of a number of toxic processes.

      One way to solve this problem is to do the primary extraction at the mine site and then transport the more valuable (and now quite a bit more concentrated) ore to a central site which has the technology and supervision to further extract the material at minimal environmental risk. The US DOE (Dept. of Energy) is looking into these sorts of issues. Of course, China need not be bothered by any of this mamby pamby Greeny stuff, so they have a built in competitive advantage.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Yet another obvious solution by spectral7 · · Score: 1

      IMHO all of these products, including motors for hybrid vehicles, are too important to allow China to trivial blackmail the rest of the world at their pleasure. All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

      Opening new mines or even just re-opening the old mine in Mountain Pass, CA, can't happen "overnight." It will take at least seven years to open a new mine (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10617r.pdf).

    5. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

      Where does this money come from? Taxes. So, instead of those people that need these products directly paying higher prices you're just going to push that cost on everyone and in such a way that it costs even more, thanks to all the intermediaries that have to collect taxes, deal with the subsidies, regulations, etc. Thanks but no thanks. If you need a product, just pay the market price for it. If it's too high of a price, "drop some of your needs".

    6. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No, the market price by itself would support opening or reopening [arstechnica.com] of rare earth mines. What you may need is a waiver from the EPA.

      If you totally ignore everything they say and instead of that you consider only their actions... then the purpose of the EPA is easily known.

      The purpose is to make damned certain that the USA never becomes self-sufficient and able to benefit from its own natural resources. Want to drill for oil? Too fucking bad, we won't let you. It's okay for wildlife in the Middle East and Canada and South America to be impacted by drilling, but not wildlife in the USA. Let's be hypocritical bastards!

      It's okay for China to mine rare earths and sell them to us but not okay for us to get our own from domestic supplies. Again their wildlife is more expendable than ours. Somehow their wild animals don't feel pain like ours do, or something.

      It's okay to pay someone else to harm the environment someplace else. But not okay to pay yourself to do it here. That'd be baaaad.

      "Hmm... how can we weaken the nation so all those unlucky unfortunate 3rd-world nations can take us down a peg or two to assuage our white guilt that we feel for being successful and not living in unstable political shitholes? I know! I got it! We'll do it in the name of protecting the environment. I mean fuck, who could be against clean air and drinkable water? No one, that's who. It's the next best thing to protecting the children!"

      You want a better USA, eliminate, defund, and fire all employees of the EPA and the federal Department of Education. Then establish a $1 billion bounty for the first commercial thorium nuclear reactor that sells electricity on the open market for 3 years. And end the War on Drugs. And quit trying to be the world's police and never use the military for anything other than defending our own borders, preferably from illegal aliens. If you shoot them on sight you will only have to do it a few times for the rest to stop coming here. Then experience an age of prosperity not known since the 1950s.

    7. Re:Yet another obvious solution by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the exact reverse of what you are claiming will happen.

      Everyone else in the world will have tapped out all of their resources and we will be left with ours. We will be left with our Oil and our Rare Earths because the EPA stuck it's nose in. When it matters, WE will be the ones that are self sufficient.

      That's what happens when you plan ahead or consider something more than just the moment.

      Sure, it's side effect the tree hugger's view of thinking ahead but it works out anyways.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Yet another obvious solution by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While we can discuss where the line is, not wanting to poison the drinking water is not mamby pamby.

      Maybe you should look into the condition of drinking water down stream prior to 1970.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Edwin_OS · · Score: 1

      Incomplete. Nations may evolve in a sense, but they also benefit from world stability and the improvement of their community. The short-term selfish act may not generate the best result in the long term.

      Look up Nash Equilibrium.

      Ya, just like USA Right?

    10. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, the US of course only ever acts as a rational agent and never falls for the tragedy of commons. I also believe in unicorns, flying pixie dust, and flying unicorns snorting pixie dust.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    11. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the world (read: US) does not have rare earth mineral (which aren't rare at all, actually) mines because China has a long history of simply lowering prices until all competing mines have gone out of business. China considers that having a monopolistic source for rare earths gives them substantial manufacturing advantages for thousands of products, including florescent lights, medical supplies, and disk drives.

      IMHO all of these products, including motors for hybrid vehicles, are too important to allow China to trivial blackmail the rest of the world at their pleasure. All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

      Government intervention in the economy? LOL What would the teabaggers think?

    12. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we need to stop letting capitalist countries (like China) influence our own internal economies and politics.

      If we are to allow China to influence our economies (that is, our political systems) then people should at least try to learn the language. Right now most people in the United States can't even speak proper English. How are they supposed to speak to their bosses if they don't know Mandarin or Cantonese?

    13. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China acts strategically in the best interests of their wealthy dictators. The Chinese people are firewood. If China wins it won't be the "bet" nation, it will be the worst nation.

    14. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting other factors as well.

      China doesn't give two shits about tearing up the land to extract whatever they can from it or the poor sods that get hired to do it. The same kind on wanton disregard for the environment is no longer allowed in many other parts of the world. Believe it or not, there's actually a cost associated when taking a long-term approach to the land as opposed to the short-term slash-and-burn style. This isn't a problem if everyone decides to play nice and take an environmentally friendly approach, but as you also point out, China really doesn't care and will load the dice even if it means turning their parts of their country into a complete shit hole.

      China can't afford to subsidize their exports forever, though. Eventually it becomes financially viable for other countries to start tapping their own reserves. Either that or it becomes too strategically valuable such that other governments will also subsidize that particular industry. It might not even be a matter of greed from China's perspective. I imagine that they've realized that when the Middle East runs out of oil, the rest of the world will stop caring about them. Perhaps China has realized that it might not be in their long-term best interest to export all of their natural resources.

    15. Re:Yet another obvious solution by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      The companies buying the raw materials are at fault, really.

      They knowingly buy their raw materials from mining companies that they know will jack up prices as soon as their slightly more expensive competitors are out of business. The companies are idiots, because they're looking at quarterly financial statements rather than long term.

      Sure, you may be able to buy the raw materials slightly cheaper now, but in two years you've helped drive the mining companies' competitors out of business, and you can bet your ass, that the savings you've had will be gone in months.

      Say what you will about Apple, Apple's products and their prices, but they are more than capable of looking at long term goals. Just look at their massive deals for flash and displays - people thought they were stupid for locking themselves into such deals, but really they were shoring up their supply line for years and years, to the point where they weren't really affected by fluctuating market supply and pricing.

      But hey - I'm not a financial genius who only knows how to extract the most money out of a company for my own personal gain in the shortest amount of time.

    16. Re:Yet another obvious solution by aztektum · · Score: 1

      That's a much better idea. Let's "drill baby drill!" and pillage the only planet we know of where humans can survive so we can make money and have our fancy gizmos. Fuck later generations and their interest in having a healthy ecosystem in which to live.

      If we wanted to truly be better, we'd invest money in new technologies that let us utilize resources w/o having to destroy everything to get at them. It would be difficult, sure, but we sent people to fucking moon just to rub it in the Soviets faces. I would find it difficult to believe we couldn't solve these problems in a responsible fashion. I imagine we would if we had someone like to Soviets around, another giant dick waving contest. Heaven forbid actually leaving the place better off than we found it for the next generation be reason enough.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    17. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeat: 'Do Leh Loh Mo'

      It's all the Chinese you will need.

    18. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem. If you don't buy the cheaper materials, your company might not even be around in 2 years. That's the problem.
      The solution should be a moratorium on chinese REs, or at least a tariff, neither of which will ever happen, and neither of which would work anyway because places like.. well, China.. wouldn't participate, so those that did would just be committing economic suicide.

      Ugly situation every way you look at it.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    19. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      !! sarcasm alert !!

      Read it again. I don't think China is doing anyone a favor by trashing their environment for short term profit. The balance between environmental regulation and economic opportunity is a difficult one to maintain, but I for one, am happy to pay a bit more for clean water and happy critters.

      My point is that with some forethought and planning, it appears possible to increase the US rare earth mining with acceptable environmental damage by centralizing the secondary refinement process so it can be closely controlled and monitored and perhaps reap some benefits of scale. There was an interesting report on this somewhere, can't recall where I found it and Google and my brain aren't working together as a team this afternoon....

      In general, China's current approach to trashing the environment on a huge scale is going to come back and bite them in the ass within a generation. Inscrutable long term planning, indeed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Found it. Interesting read.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Chinese people are firewood.

      All people are "firewood" to their governments. No exceptions.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Fuck later generations

      Yes, fuck them. Because if we don't fuck it up, they will. At least we can enjoy ourselves while fucking things up. All this healthy ecosystem garbage is just a political talking point. People keep breeding like rats and soon it won't matter how careful you are or how much you recycle, there won't be enough raw materials per capita, and there will be too much filth per m2. So fuck everyone. If people were responsible they would limit themselves to 2 children or less. I have. But most people aren't responsible. So fuck it, I will live as I damned well please as well. Why should I be the only one making a sacrifice? Bring on the end I say, the sooner the better.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    23. Re:Yet another obvious solution by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      google for 'California Pass rare earth' and then check out this. America's mine starts later this year, with products in early 2012. That will mean that this HIGHLY ILLEGAL BLOCKADE (which is what it is) will be done. By early 2013, America will produce about 1/2 of all rare earth and by 2014, probably around 3/4. Now, they just need products to take it since China will not be buying our rare earth.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    24. Re:Yet another obvious solution by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's already biting them hard which is why they are actually starting to do a few things about pollution. They've got air quality as bad as Victorian London in a lot of places.

    25. Re:Yet another obvious solution by leenks · · Score: 1

      We will be left with our Oil and our Rare Earths because the EPA stuck it's nose in. When it matters, WE will be the ones that are self sufficient.

      And then you will run out too. Then what?

    26. Re:Yet another obvious solution by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      The problem is that if you don't buy the cheaper materials, the numbers in the next quarterly report won't be quite so high as they might have been, and the CEO's quarterly bonus might be a tad lower. And most C-level execs are completely incapable of looking past the next quarter and their next bonus check.

      For the overall health of the company, long-term planning and purchasing does work. As the parent said, just look at Apple; and see what happens when you pay your CEO with long-term stock options instead of an exorbitant salary and short-term bonuses.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    27. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1

      If only I could mod this 'misguided."

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    28. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The united states trashed much of the country doing the same thing.
      The industrial revolution.

      We recovered mostly. Cleaned up some. Swept the rest of the problems under the rug. And kept going.

      China will do the same thing when the time comes. They are just at a different point in their evolution as a country than we are right now.

      And they have many advantages going for them as well.

      Idk.. Do a little less ragging on china. They're going to run the planet within 100 years. And we got nobody to blame but ourselves. greed above all only works when everyone is playing by the same rules. And theres no reason china has to use anybody elses rules at all. They have the people, the resources, and the drive to win. And we're gonna lose because we won't do a damm thing if it hurts a bug or some species or makes someone feel bad...

      Our own damm fault.

    29. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "b-b-but the US!"
      Rational arguments never fail to bring out the butthurt in the anti-USA slashdotters XD

    30. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Snarky+McButtface · · Score: 2

      It is already starting to bite them in the ass. In most third world countries the primary cause of death is infectious disease and in most developed countries it is heart disease. In China it is cancer.

    31. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone else in the world will have tapped out all of their resources and we will be left with ours. We will be left with our Oil and our Rare Earths because the EPA stuck it's nose in. When it matters, WE will be the ones that are self sufficient.

      Unless something happens like happened to aluminum. At one point it was one of, if not the, most difficult metals to refine, and was worth more than gold or in some cases platinum. Then over the span of about a year, a couple people developed a new method of refining it. The price crashed to where, while still more expensive than other metals, is so cheap that we throw away cans and foil made out of it.

      If there's a fusion breakthrough, oil prices will crash within a year or two. Rare earths are actually not that rare, they just take a lot of work to refine. If some new, cheaper method of refining them is invented, any vast reserves of them that we are hoarding could become worthless overnight.

      Pass environmental laws because you want to protect the environment. Not because you want to gamble that a material will become rarer and more desirable in the future, under the guise of "planning ahead". If you really think the gamble is worth it, then be forthcoming and advocate planning ahead and conserving those supplies for exactly that reason (e.g. helium). Don't try to spin it as justification for environmental laws or vice versa.

    32. Re:Yet another obvious solution by xkr · · Score: 1

      No, the market price by itself would support opening or reopening of rare earth mines.

      NOT, actually. Nobody will invest in a mine at ANY market price because history shows that China is likely to AGAIN drop prices in the future, driving other mines out of business. THUS, some kind of guarantee for investors is needed.

      --
      I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
    33. Re:Yet another obvious solution by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's worth paying a higher price for strategic reasons. If the supply of something important is subject to disruption because of political considerations then it may be worth assuring that supply even if it costs more because the cost of not having it is much greater.

    34. Re:Yet another obvious solution by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      IMHO all of these products, including motors for hybrid vehicles, are too important to allow China to trivial blackmail the rest of the world at their pleasure. All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

      It is non trivial to bring these online. It takes on the order of years but this ball is already rolling.

      The chinese might be able to screw the market over in the short run.. over the long haul they are only screwing themselves.

    35. Re:Yet another obvious solution by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      are too important to allow China to trivial blackmail the rest of the world at their pleasure

      s/China/OPEC/gi

    36. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it appears possible to increase the US rare earth mining with acceptable environmental damage by centralizing the secondary refinement process so it can be closely controlled and monitored and perhaps reap some benefits of scale."

      I find if fascinating and unfortunate that so few people understand the subjective nature of acceptability. This leads to the misunderstanding that centralization of such decision making is possible. It is not, and never has been, which is why such measures always lead to more problems than they even try to fix.

    37. Re:Yet another obvious solution by nateb · · Score: 1

      In most third world countries the primary cause of death is infectious disease and in most developed countries it is heart disease. In China it is cancer.

      I'm not sure if you know this, but China has so many people they don't know what to do with them. They won't even let you have babies! Given China's record on treating people nicely, I'm sure plenty of them will get the "Take two aspirin. Don't call in the morning," treatment.

      Cancer is a good thing, as far as China's leadership is concerned.

      --
      -- Nate
    38. Re:Yet another obvious solution by amorsen · · Score: 1

      If there is a fusion breakthrough large enough to make oil prices crash in a year or two, the whole economy will change dramatically. Everything will change price. If that kind of thing is actually possible, the only policy that matters is trying to make it happen as soon as possible, even if we wreck the environment in the process. We could always fix it afterwards or terraform Mars or whatever we decide is cool.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    39. Re:Yet another obvious solution by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Apples other CEO's were AFAIK paid in about the same way. That didn't work.

      In a perfectly competitive market, companies which pay too much for their raw materials in the short term go out of business. Since most markets are not perfectly competitive, it is possible to accept a short-term loss for long-term gain. However, it would be difficult to prevent the competitors going for short-term gain from benefiting the long-term planning of the other companies.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    40. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hypocrisy is so thick in here you can cut it with a knife. Is this the same US which has been the biggest polluter like forever and famous for snubbing environmental treaties? Being exactly to the world what you are saying China is now? Fuck the world, for the economic advantage? You pathetic fuck. Anyone from the US should shut up, they are the last people on earth to make judgements about China. Shut up in shame is what you should do. Especially since your country is a breeding place of corruption and fascism to levels never seen before. Perhaps you should start there, you lame fuck. Btw, China as the main world power will never be as big a polluter as the US was. This is because you guys burned the earth and used up most the accessible resources already. In light of this all, your post proves you are insane.

    41. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The companies buying the raw materials are at fault, really.

      They knowingly buy their raw materials from mining companies that they know will jack up prices as soon as their slightly more expensive competitors are out of business. The companies are idiots, because they're looking at quarterly financial statements rather than long term.

      Sure, you may be able to buy the raw materials slightly cheaper now, but in two years you've helped drive the mining companies' competitors out of business, and you can bet your ass, that the savings you've had will be gone in months.

      You misunderstand. The price increase won't bother the companies at all, because their competitors won't be able to get cheap materials either. The price of raw material does not matter much, as long as the others don't get it cheaper. They just increase the price of end products, at a time where everybody else also increase prices.

    42. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Arlet · · Score: 1

      If they drop prices again below fair market value, just take advantage of it by increasing imports, and use those to build a strategic storage.

    43. Re:Yet another obvious solution by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      those mines can be opened later. strategically it's best for the rest of the world to just buy from the exploited chinese miners - and give them numbers on a banking account in exchange, numbers which are not simple for them to use to buy stuff because the chinese government screws them even in that regard("haha").

      they can be substituted in most products too. other substances just aren't so good.

      and hd costs? going up 5%? isn't that just inside real inflation anyways - but tech devaluation throws them down another fiver so boo hoo - potatoes are going to go up in price more.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    44. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      It really depends entirely on the difference in the price of the REs.

      I have no idea how big of an effect the price of REs has on making anything, so no idea what the threshold would be -- but it's not unreasonable to consider that the competition would use their advantage in sourcing their materials to outprice the Good Company who isn't dealing with China, and thus drive Good Company out of business in the short-term regardless of how much better Good Company would perform in the long-term.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    45. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: free markets. If they were to buy the more expensive stuff, they'd go out of business because the other companies obviously would sell cheaper. Net result, the 'smarter' buying company would go belly up and the more expensive mines would still be forced to close albeit maybe a little later.

    46. Re:Yet another obvious solution by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Whew, I hope you (and whoever modded you up) is being sarcastic.

      Population growth is the one thing that looks like it won't do us in, because global reproduction rates have been falling quite rapidly. Everywhere in the world where women's rights and contraception have become available, reproduction has taken a big nose dive. I don't know of any exception to that rule. And globalization is causing this to occur perhaps faster than expected.

      One other thing: "If people were responsible they would limit themselves to 2 children or less. I have. But most people aren't responsible."

      Aren't they? The US has a higher birth rate than most industrialized nations, yet it's 2.05, right at that magic number. Without immigration, we'd be headed for stability right now. Also, keep in mind, it's not necessary for everybody to have 2 or fewer kids, only that the average is 2. Some don't want any, or just 1. Also the birth rate is quite sensitive to economic hardship, which means the carrying capacity will impose itself somewhat gradually as incomes drop relative to prices.

      Don't get me wrong, I am plenty worried about global warming, fossil fuel depletion, and fresh water shortages leading to food price increases and mass starvation. I don't think most Americans know how close to reality this already is in poor nations where people spend a huge proportion of their money on food. I think it would be great if, long term, we could stabilize at about 1/4 of today's population (through natural attrition after long, healthy lives of course). But population growth is one area where it looks like it might turn out OK.

    47. Re:Yet another obvious solution by brentc3114 · · Score: 1

      If vast quantities of earth need to be extracted to get rare earth metals because they are so dilute, why not recycle old hard drives? If each hard drive has a magnet in it then surely this would be more cost effective?

    48. Re:Yet another obvious solution by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      but I for one, am happy to pay a bit more for clean water and happy critters.

      At some point in US history saying "pay a little more" was equivalent to saying "work a little more", but it hasn't been that way for a few generations now, that "pay a little more" now means "borrow a little more".

    49. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      And there IS a technology visible on the horizon that would basically do the same thing for all elements that electrolysis did for aluminum. It's called molecular manufacturing. In short, if we ever develop the tech, we would be able to build molecular sorters that could, given enough energy, separate basically any feedstock into the constituent elements. And the sorters themselves could be manufactured for almost no cost because they would be produced by equipment that can exponentially self-replicate.

    50. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Fusion isn't what we need. It's nanotechnology.

      With fusion, we have a method to build an incredibly expensive power generator that does the same thing we can do with a fission plant right now (except the fusion plant would likely be much more expensive). We can get effectively unlimited energy using fission plants and well understood technology right now..the problem is the manufacturing and operating costs to build a reliable and safe fission reactor are prohibitive. (hence the reason why corners get cut and nasty things happen)

      Nanotechnology effectively means the ability to build '3d printers' that can print themselves and almost any arbitrary object, given sufficient time, energy, and the elements needed. Then we could fix our environmental problems or just convert the moon or Mars into a cloud of space habitats or whatever.

    51. Re:Yet another obvious solution by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      So basically you are talking the equivalent of replicators. I wouldn't hold your breath. Fusion is always about 20 years away. Nanotech of the kind you are referring to is more like a perpetual 500-1000 years away.

      Also, when you factor in environmental costs fusion may end up being cheaper due to less radioactive waste. Now if we could just figure out a way to live 20 years in the future.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    52. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have that exactly right. There are plenty of Rare Earth resources all over the world, including many right here in the Good Ole USA that are not only patented claims but in some cases developed mines that were mothballed when the Chinese started illegally dumping their ores on us at prices that were below their cost.

      The only thing this means is that our own mines will soon re-open. If you live in Southern Cal or Vegas, you can go see one of them. It's in the Mojave just north of I-15 very near to the Nipton exit.

      Yes, the cost of the materials will increase -- because the cost has been artificially low. We are not facing TEOTWAWKI.

    53. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about that. China is polluting their own land severely with their mining, manufacturing, and power production to the point they will have serious economical costs someday. For the short term it makes them more competitive, but when China starts having high cancer rates, birth defects and can't farm vast tracks of land they will suffer.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    54. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically yes. Molycorp Minerals' facility in Mountain Pass, California went under partly because of environmental concerns created by the incompetence and 'cheap bastardness' of a previous owner. The new owner is cleaning up the past owners mess, and is planning on re-opening the mine. Also, there is potential as described here. Some mines have been idled because China cut the price of minerals to uneconomic levels. With global demand and restrictions on Chinese exports, a lot of 'next cheapest' mines will have the mothballs removed and second sources come onstream.

    55. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      That is the most insane bunch of bullshit I have ever heard. You want to have all our land fouled up and unable for habitation or farming? Do you want our food supplies to absorb all the chemicals we pump into the environment so we end up with cancers in our 20's? Do you want lakes and rivers so polluted you can't fish out of them or swim in them? Give me a break. This is what the EPA is for, to ensure things have minimal effect on the environment. Frankly, they don't actually do that great of a job since they allow a lot of shit to slide by. Idiots like you will kill off humanity and revert Earth to some kind of primordial world full of Jellyfish, algae and bacteria living in sludge.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    56. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100bn tonnes of rare earths are lying in the Pacific Ocean.

    57. Re:Yet another obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is this thing called market manipulation. There is a cost to entering or leaving a market. China has demonstrated the ability to maintain operations at two different cost levels. They are displaying classic lowball to capture market then raise price to enjoy monopoly. China has demonstrated the will to control the market. China has the capital to plow through any periods of losses. Amazingly enough, Economics has progressed beyond a simple one line mantra fondly repeated by teenage mouthbreathers in order to vainly convince themselves that they have a mature sense of responsibility. Within the discipline of Economics the general situation that we have here involving the Chinese and rare earth metals is modeled and not in any serious dispute. It is easy to grasp. The market will not solve the situation and it is plain to see that this is so.

    58. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Source for your statement? This isn't Stargate "replicators"...it's machinery made atom by atom that can position reactive atomic intermediates automatically. A full up printer would use trillions of identical subunits that work this way.

      Technology like this, even early versions of it, would be more valuable than essentially any other possible technology that we could plausibly build in the visible future.

      We can already make things atom by atom right now. If you look into the past, you find very few technologies that the people of our past could explain and describe in exact detail that did not exist within 50-100 years. (while we don't quite have the software modeling tools and automated machinery to actually build our first nanotech printing devices, we understand extremely well what this entails)

      Nanotechnology like I'm describing has only existed as a consistent idea for 28 years. So your "500-1000" year estimate seems like pure fluff.

    59. Re:Yet another obvious solution by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Dude metallurgists don't even understand why some alloy's and heat treatments do some of the things they do to the material properties.

      It's basically been trial and error for two thousand years that had lead to our understanding of steel. (perhaps a slight overstatement but only for the last 50 or so years.)

      Thinking that a nano-printer will print ready made hardened and tempered steel anytime soon is insane. It's atomically pre-stressed. You can place each atom just like you think it should go together. It won't come out right. Carbon will move unless held in place by Iron which hasn't been printed yet.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    60. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      You inject charge into quantum dots as part of the clamp holding the substrate in your print head to stabilize intermediate states. You remove the charge at the same time you place the next atom that results in a final, stable state.

      We don't have to understand why steel is what it is - we just have to know exactly which atoms go where and what the bonds are. All materials science no matter how complex is ultimately just a limited number of elements bonded a limited number of ways.

      So an incredibly hard seeming problem - create steel from scratch - is simplified to 'reproduce this exact pattern of iron and carbon atoms stored in this data array' and that is simplified to actual machine steps that individual subunits of your equipment can perform.

      Right now, today, we can already build micro structures that function in machinery. In limited scenarios, we can create atomically precise structures. We know that nature has working nanotechnology, and we can reprogram it readily. (the catch is that coding standards are so poor that we can only get predictable outcomes in limited scenarios)

      Just so you know, amino acids in nature are atomically precise and the actual synthesis steps natural enzymes use involve positioning single atom reactive intermediates where they need to go.

      Anyways, I can tell from your comments that you are ignorant about the subject. Read a book on it or something. And the technology I'm describing would have significant drawbacks, such as the printing heads wearing out and very high energy consumption. (it would take vastly more energy to create a block of steel by using machinery to position atoms one by one in a controlled manner than just melting stuff in a forge)

      On the other hand, steel isn't magic. If we could try different molecular patterns of carbon and iron systematically, we could probably find a pattern that has better properties than any metal available today.

    61. Re:Yet another obvious solution by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nice arm waving but you don't know what you are talking about. WTF is a 'quantum dot' but a theoretical construct.

      Creating steel is (relatively) easy. Creating pre-hardened and tempered steel is another problem. Nature can't do it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    62. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      A quantum dot is a pit for electrical charge and they are not theoretical, they are quite real. I have to send the hot potato back the other direction : how do you know anything if you didn't type the phrase into google and find the millions of references to it.

    63. Re:Yet another obvious solution by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Maybe I have to arm wave a little bit, but check your history. Did Charles Babbage have to arm-wave, or did he have all the money and equipment he needed to build his computers? (which DID WORK)

      Did Werner Von Braun have every detail of his rockets worked out?

      Etc. Point is, none of those historical figures were 500 years ahead of their time. They were 50-60 years at most.

  7. dead man walking by lophophore · · Score: 2

    Rotating media is heading the way of the CRT. This will just accelerate the switch to SSD and whatever's next.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:dead man walking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 5% to 10% increase in "rotating media" is not going to do much when SSD cost an order of magnitude more per GB.

    2. Re:dead man walking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right! I can't see any reason why I shouldn't run out now and buy some SSDs to replace my twenty 2TB drives!

      Hell, with the higher price of rare earth metals those SSDs are looking positively cheap!

    3. Re:dead man walking by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      SSDs are at or around a dollar per gigabyte. That's only running about six years behind the price of hard drives. In those six years, hard drive prices have dropped by a factor of ten. In the past three years, solid state disks have dropped by more than a factor of twenty. Thus, SSDs are dropping in price more than four times as fast as hard drives. If we extrapolate that into the future, the current order of magnitude will go away in about seven or eight years without this added burden on hard drives.

      More importantly, however, most users don't need a terabyte drive in their laptops. (I already have one, and most other folks don't need nearly that much capacity.) For most folks, the question is therefore not when the cost per GB gets low enough, but rather whether they can get something big enough for a hundred bucks or less. Adding ten bucks to the base price on hard drives brings them a lot closer to the base price for SSDs.

      Finally, a bump of 10% in rotating media won't make them equal, but it is important to note that this is a fixed cost being added to the cost of hard drive manufacturing, independent of capacity. Thus, there will always be this artificial floor propping up the price—a floor that SSDs won't have.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:dead man walking by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Uh no they haven't. SSDs were at $1/GB in 2008. Then they shot up as industry consolidation, capex cutting, and demand soared. They've only come close to $1/GB again this year.

    5. Re:dead man walking by evilviper · · Score: 1

      In the past three years, solid state disks have dropped by more than a factor of twenty. Thus, SSDs are dropping in price more than four times as fast as hard drives. If we extrapolate that into the future, the current order of magnitude will go away in about seven or eight years without this added burden on hard drives.

      And if we extrapolate further, within 10 years manufacturers will be PAYING YOU to take SSDs off their hands.

      No, your conclusions aren't any less flawed.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:dead man walking by Arlet · · Score: 1

      No matter how many factors of twenty you reduce the price, it will never get negative.

    7. Re:dead man walking by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell from a number of searches on the subject, SSDs were mostly in the ballpark of $10 per gigabyte for most of 2008, +/- about $2.50 per gigabyte, with the cheapest drives falling to somewhere around $2.30 per gigabyte by year's end. They've never been anywhere close to $1 per gigabyte in terms of what the customer actually pays.

      Maybe you're confusing true SSDs with USB flash drives? Or maybe you're confusing bare flash part prices with the price of the finished product?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:dead man walking by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Only if you extrapolate in a really stupid way by assuming that prices will drop by $X per gigabyte instead of assuming that prices will continue to drop by a certain percentage per year as I did.

      Yes, my conclusions are a hell of a lot less flawed. They're certainly no guarantee of future performance, as new technology tends to be bursty and rather unpredictable, but they're at least a decent ballpark guess, which is more than you have offered.

      Either way, it's pretty clear that SSD technology has more room for capacity growth per unit cost than magnetic storage. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that the cost per gigabyte for SSDs will drop below that of hard drives within the next couple of decades, give or take (unless some third, disruptive technology renders them both obsolete before that happens).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:dead man walking by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      I had a G2 Postville in my laptop for a while, and just swapped it back out for a Spinpoint M8. With 8GB of RAM and Superfetch, the difference is definitely noticeable, but IMHO not worth the hit in storage capacity and price. Being able to have more than a barebones operating system with me (I can't really fit much more than Win7 x64 and my applications on an 80gig SSD) is currently worth more to me than the speed boost of an SSD, and 300+GB SSDs (what I'd realistically need to not have to plug in an external hard drive *all the time*) are just too frackin expensive.

      Also, SSD is a hassle. Always thinking, "Oooooh, I have limited write cycles, better not use hibernate even though it's nice and fast on an SSD, and better not write too much stuff to disk with app XXXXX and better move the cache from other app XXXXX to a platter drive and so on and so forth...". I think I might be too paranoid for SSDs :P

    10. Re:dead man walking by amorsen · · Score: 2

      The SSD's that were $1/GB in 2008 were total crap though. Often slower than regular hard drives, even for random access.

      Intel's X25-M arrived late 2008 at around $600 pr 80GB.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    11. Re:dead man walking by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      That's a production and technology refinement issue. Cost doesn't increase as you streamline controllers and manufacturing processes.

    12. Re:dead man walking by amorsen · · Score: 1

      What's your point? You're still comparing a useless product from 2008 with a very useful product from 2011. Strangely enough the useful product has trouble being cheaper than the useless product.

      In 2008 you could even get special Chinese drives labeled 64GB with special controllers that only kept the last xx MB you wrote. Those were even cheaper.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    13. Re:dead man walking by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      get ssd life free. This program tracks your total writes over time and calculates your remaining lifespan. You have to have the program installed for a few months to give an accurate estimate. I use my SSD for my OS and programs on a computer that is in use 24/7. According to SSD life, at the current rate of use I have over a century of media life remaining. (the SSD will undoubtedly be too obsolete for use long before then, or it would die from an electronic part failing long before a century passed). SSD is an X-25M 80 GB.

    14. Re:dead man walking by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, sounds perfect for people as neurotic as me, thanks for the tip :D

    15. Re:dead man walking by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Because flash density is unrelated to advances in controller tech. Flash hasn't gotten any cheaper since 2008.

  8. Panic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I question the ability of civilization to survive if we have to pay $100+ per TB...

    1. Re:Panic. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      We did just fine so far... ENTERPRISE drives are still 3-4x as expensive. Doesn't hurt anything except useless posts on Internet boards... They MIGHT have to send THIS post to the bitbucket in the sky ... Someday like 5 years from now...

      To free up space for LOLCats!

      Seriously, the machine I admin with all my company's data is only 500GB of meaningful data. that's up from about 450 or so a few years ago. The business factor is not very high for manufacturing related things..

  9. magnets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How the fuck do they work?

  10. The real reason by stoev · · Score: 1

    HDD industry was consolidated. The competition was reduced. There are now basically two producers - WD and Seagate.

    1. Re:The real reason by PRMan · · Score: 1

      But now there are many manufacturers:

      Intel, OCZ, Kingston, Crucial, etc., etc.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:The real reason by sexconker · · Score: 0

      HDD industry was consolidated. The competition was reduced. There are now basically two producers - WD and Seagate.

      How dare you sensical and factual information on Slashdot.
      How is Commander Tachole going to generate clicks if you don't start spreading some FUD about China?

    3. Re:The real reason by stoev · · Score: 1

      SSD industry is also not very far from monopoly and moving in that direction. Check who is manufacturing and supplying the flash memory to most SSD producers. Hint: http://www.isuppli.com/Abstract/P13699_20110621100254.pdf Note that economies of scale are possible only for very large volumes, so anything below 5% is probably losing money.

  11. no need for guaranteed purchase by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

    As price rise, it will become profitable enough to reopen the mines in the US again.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:no need for guaranteed purchase by petman · · Score: 1

      Mining the stuff is one thing. Where would you send the ores for processing? Or would anyone willing to open rare earth processing plants in the US, considering the environmental issues that comes with disposal of toxic waste generated by such plants?

    2. Re:no need for guaranteed purchase by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't there a desolate, almost uninhabited desert in Peru just off the Pacific Ocean?

      Aren't they pretty desperate?

      Comes down to energy to run desalination to supply the water and political stability. Nice earthquake area so good fun for all, lets build a nuke or four to run the thing. Prove a modern nuke can run through a 8. Nobody but employees/contractors for a hundred miles. Show those Chinese how we do it the American way.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:no need for guaranteed purchase by Alamais · · Score: 1

      +1 ...I'd buy stock in it.

  12. We already have some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't we just talk about this the other day?

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/08/04/1857220/Rare-Earth-Deposit-Discovered-In-US

    Now all we have to do is mine some of it.

    1. Re:We already have some by PPH · · Score: 1

      Sorry. You must have missed the news about the discovery of the Elk Creek lousewort. Genetically identical to every other lousewort, but the courts say the Elk Creek variety is a distinct species. So no digging anywhere near it. Endangered, of course.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  13. 5% increase on hard drives... by sdguero · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh no! My next 3 TB drive is going to cost $105 instead of $100. The sky is falling!

    Pffft. This isn't news worthy.

    1. Re:5% increase on hard drives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone buys hard drives one at a time. Companies often buy multiple 20 drive bulk packs when building storage servers. Personally I might buy the 10 drives I need for a build right now rather than several months from now as I originally planned.

      So, speak for yourself, this is certainly news worthy.

    2. Re:5% increase on hard drives... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Companies that buy drives in bulk to put into storage servers don't care about this 5% when compared to the retail price of drives.

      They are already paying an arm and a leg to have a certain company's brand name on it along with support and warranty assurances.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:5% increase on hard drives... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      H*ll... once someone put the price hike into it's proper context I realized that even I personally would not change my buying habits over this. I am not going to go out and by 5 or 10 more drives today just because the price is going to go up something on the order of my local sales tax.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:5% increase on hard drives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you put the apostrophe into its proper context?

    5. Re:5% increase on hard drives... by bigwiki · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Some people have Sinophobia. China this, China that everyday. A 3TB drive is only $100. We should be happy.

    6. Re:5% increase on hard drives... by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Some people have Sinophobia. China this, China that everyday. A 3TB drive is only $100. We should be happy.

      Where the hell are you guys buying 3TB disks for $100???

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    7. Re:5% increase on hard drives... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      H*ll...

      You've got to be shitting me.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  14. inquiring mind I see... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2

    How the fuck do they work?

    You too, shall be honored to experience Alex Chiu's [burning sarcasm]miraculous discovery.[/burning sarcasm]
    (sorry, but you asked. yes, I am kidding.)

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:inquiring mind I see... by retchdog · · Score: 3, Funny

      why do i even bother trying to make an honest living...

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  15. Escape the China syndrome by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    "Race for rare earths" broadcast on the 18/08/2011
    Come to Australia http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3296991.htm
    The US, Europe, Japan are interested and it will only cost A$700 to $800 million (A$~=US$).
    Get your vision goggles, spy radar, missile guidance and tank navigation systems supplies from friends :)
    We love US investors and your open ended defence funding goes a long way in Oz :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. China exports complete HDs? by drnb · · Score: 1

    There is another angle to this. Perhaps China will restrict the export of components, such as rare earth magnets, to be used in the manufacture/assembly of HDs in other countries but they will probably not restrict the export of Chinese manufactured/assembled HDs. This may merely be a tactic to force Seagate and WD to move more production to China.

    China does not want to manufacture low priced commodities. They want to manufacture high tech finished goods. They will use all forms of pressure to reach this goal.

  17. So what...... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    The world is headed towards SSDs anyway. In fact this is only going to spur incentives for more rapid development of larger drives.

    1. Re:So what...... by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      So either China gets big money from increased prices on rare earth exports, or they get big money manufacturing more expensive SSDs... win/win for China?

  18. Most HDDs are Made in China by Quantum_Infinity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aren't most HDDs made in China? So how does cutting export of rare earth metals make a difference?

    1. Re:Most HDDs are Made in China by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      No, no they aren't mostly made in China actually.
      Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand however yes.

    2. Re:Most HDDs are Made in China by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No, no they aren't mostly made in China actually.
      Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand however yes.

      Not quite. Seagate HDDs are produced in China, WD HDDs are produced in Thailand, Hitachi in China, no idea about Samsung but I'd be amazed if it wasn't Korea.

    3. Re:Most HDDs are Made in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are HDD manufacturers outside Chine even making there own magnets from rare-earth metals, or do they simply buy (Chinese) magnets? And do these export restrictions apply to finished magnet products, or only to the raw rare-earth metals?

    4. Re:Most HDDs are Made in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well of my last three, one was made in Thailand, the other two in Malaysia.

  19. Recycling? by pjwhite · · Score: 3

    With all the old hard drives that wear out or become obsolete, I wonder if there is any effort being put into recycling the rare earth magnets they contain, or if old drives are just dumped by the ton into landfills.

    1. Re:Recycling? by krray · · Score: 2

      Well .. *I* have recycled my old hard drives... The magnets in server class hard drives are phenomenal. They make absolutely wonderful tool holders -- as long as the tool can become magnetized (and they do) without being a problem for you. You find yourself buying metal things just so you can hang them up easily... :)

    2. Re:Recycling? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      I store my old first generation SCSI magnets on drywall screws that have been plastered and painted over on my walls. I'm still like a little kid whenever I hang a new one up.

      --
      The game.
    3. Re:Recycling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they end up stuck on my filing cabinet.

    4. Re:Recycling? by toby · · Score: 1

      Very good point. We CANNOT afford to landfill all these extractive metals and elements (regardless of China or any other specific issue).

      --
      you had me at #!
    5. Re:Recycling? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Since drives are almost all metal, I would guess they don't land fill them. They probably shred them for scrap, perhaps after removing the circuit board first. Then like a lot of scrap metal they probably ship it to China to be processed.

  20. Buckyballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit they can have all these lousy Buckyballs that my coworkers keep fucking around with.

  21. Nevada deposits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there news that the US (re)discovered some significant deposit somewhere?

    Where is Elon "how we can beat China in cost" Musk when you really need his creative accounting skills.

  22. Tempest in a Teapot... by Genda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Chinese will mess with the price of Rare Earths (which are not really all that rare) and the US will almost certainly begin using its own from a major find in California. All the while Austrailia, Japan, Africa and South America look at seriously developing their resources. The real lock China has on Rare Earths is its processing (pretty much the only game in town right now.) Here's a chance for the U.S. to get back into industrial jobs (god forbid) and produce a lasting job base for a new global economic boom in the rare earth arena. The Chinese advantage is short term, and if they squeeze too hard, the world will simply take their business away. Nobody likes a chiseler.

    By the way rare earths are used all over the place and for a dizzying array of things. There are about 400 lbs of them in a late model Prius. They are used in virtually all green tech (high performance generators in modern wind mills are pretty much sluggs of rare earths.) Colorful plasma and LED displays use them (that cool display on your smart phone is probably chock full of rare earths.) Florescent lighting that is any color but off green uses rare earth mixed in with the coating. Rare earths are used in glass making, advanced textiles, plastics with special properties (OLEDs), and anything that uses an enhanced magnetic field from an earbud to an mag-lev train. Even the "Euro" contains a trace of Europium as an elemental pun. Modern society runs on rare earths.

    1. Re:Tempest in a Teapot... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      They aren't rare at all and there are deposits across the USA. Purifying them is environmentally a nasty business, which is why China supplies them.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Tempest in a Teapot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The real lock China has on Rare Earths is its processing (pretty much the only game in town right now.) Here's a chance for the U.S. to get back into industrial jobs (god forbid) and produce a lasting job base for a new global economic boom in the rare earth arena."

      The number of jobs is quite low because any processing operation is highly automated to reduce costs unless you pay slave wages. Mining and processing metals is *not* the way to solve an employment problem, especially when any deposit will inevitably be in operation for only a limited time. Processing can last longer, employment-wise, but only if there's ore feedstock from mines and it is economic to process it, and if you are willing to accept the costs and challenges of doing a fairly messy chemical process responsibly.

    3. Re:Tempest in a Teapot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REE (Rare Earth Elements) tend to be found in deposits containing relatively high levels of uranium and radium. This is the primary reason for processing being complicated.

      Anyway, the problem with shortages will be fixed within a few years.

      Secondly, AFAIK, China is currently only blocking exports of raw REE, not products, like magnets. It is quite OK to make a magnet and export it, though there are rumors that they could start putting in max quotas for export of some alloys which would be a problem.

      Thirdly, prices have gone up 2-6x in last year. I'm not certain . The summary prices are wrong. Average price increase in last 6 years is 15x and 6x since China imposed export restrictions. Neodymium is up "only" 3x. Price increase from 2004-2007 is due to energy price increases.

      http://www.ree-investor.com/aboutrareearthelementsm/rare-earth-prices.html

    4. Re:Tempest in a Teapot... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      The reason China has a near-monopoly on rare earths isn't primarily economic, it's due to the heavy enviro restrictions on the mining (and more significantly) processing needed to get rare earths from their ore? substrate?.

      A number of countries can develop a rare earths industry and have it be competitive, there just has to be an acceptance that it's a polluting industry.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:Tempest in a Teapot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few things will be in the way of any company in the US being able to process the ore to get the REE out. EPA, OSHA, PETA, Greenpeace, Earth First, ELF, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Sierra Club to name just a few.

      I'm sure that there will be some "rare" salamander or bug somewhere near by that will need protecting to stop the Evil Corporations from profiting from exploitation of migrant dirt farmers as well.

      I wish I were kidding.

  23. I can explain the actual reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is total bullshit. The reason they are increasing HD costs is because of SSD's. They are trying to leverage the cost ratio and exploit that ratio. If that is too complex someone explain it because I'm busy.

    1. Re:I can explain the actual reason by geekmux · · Score: 1

      This is total bullshit. The reason they are increasing HD costs is because of SSD's. They are trying to leverage the cost ratio and exploit that ratio. If that is too complex someone explain it because I'm busy.

      Well, if you think the cover story here is bullshit, then let's break this down to the real reason China has decreased exports and effected an increase in costs of (not-so)rare earth materials.

      Because they can.

      Oh wait, here's one more reason...

      Because we let them.

      'nuff said.

  24. magnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how do they work?

    1. Re:magnets by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      boring really: accelerating electron makes a photon, photon is absorbed by another electron which causes it to accelerate.

  25. Re:5% increase on hard drives...more for speakers2 by hguorbray · · Score: 1

    This will also affect the Live Music Manufacturers since all the really sexy new light speakers are driven with Neodymium magnets and they use a lot more of the stuff per unit (lbs vs grams) than HDs

    http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f87/neodymium-%93light-weight%94-speaker-cabinet-review-167954/

    Neodymium magnets plus Class D amplifiers are creating a sea change in live amplification -I have a Markbass combo amp that does 300watts into a 12-inch speaker and weighs less than 40 lbs -of course it cost a bit: ~$1k
    http://www.markbass.it/products.php

    1500 watts, 18" subwoofer -only 43 kg
    http://www.master-audio.com/producto.asp?id=195

    genz-benz is another maker of really light powerful gear as well
    http://www.genzbenz.com/?fa=whatsnew

    I'm just sayin'

  26. Newfoundland/Labrador by znigelz · · Score: 1

    Our rare earth mines are just getting started. But the deposits are huge. It may be a couple years before it relaxes the market, but by no means do they control the rare earth market. They want you to think that to inflate demand. There are lots of other sources all over Canada being surveyed (and all over the united states for that matter http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/08/04/1857220/Rare-Earth-Deposit-Discovered-In-US)

  27. Environmentalist hypocrisy by tp1024 · · Score: 1

    It's too easy to say that China is simply undercutting prices. In fact, both Europe and the USA could simply refuse to import rare earth minerals that are not mined according to appropriate environmental standards. But they don't - because they fear that their cronies will blame them for a their latest 1% fall in revenue, should they do and the radical environmentalists will stage another outbreak of moral panic anyway.

    The result of environmental standards in the USA and Europe is for the most part simply that those things are done cheaper and dirtier elsewhere (China, India, Africa, whatever). In short, it's NIMBY whatever color the veil.

  28. Why don't we just recycle old hard drives? by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Anyone have statistics on the number of hard drives produced over the years?

    1. Re:Why don't we just recycle old hard drives? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      they already shred them for scrap, I am sure its sent to a buyer in china in bulk

    2. Re:Why don't we just recycle old hard drives? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the magnets of older drives are wrong size for newer capacity use, so are the electronics and servo "wrong". Remember we're talking five to seven year life on average

      if you're talking about removing the nickel cladding from the magnets, to get the material to make new different sized magnets and then reclad them, that's complicated process

      there are companies that "recycle" them, but to be cost-effective they take a fee for "erasing" your data. and there's always "refurbished" drives.

    3. Re:Why don't we just recycle old hard drives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the magnets inside them won't come out with a little water? Because it takes considerable time and human labor to extract those 5-10 grams of magnet?

  29. Rare earths are strategic materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China cut back on export of these materials in order to stockpile them for possible future military needs.

  30. Re:My awkwardest first time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Herpes, the gift that keeps on giving...

  31. magnets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is why the price of buckyballs/neocube/generic magnet balls has increased so much. I don't know whether the hard drive or magnet ball price bothers me more...

  32. Neodymium by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    I have one metric shitload of neodymium from hard drive magnets. Where can I turn this fun to play with and fun to say metal into money?

    --
    The game.
  33. Why is this a problem !? by LUH+3418 · · Score: 1

    It's totally possible to build electric motors that use electromagnets for both the rotor and the stator... Could someone explain why permanent magnets are so much better?

    1. Re:Why is this a problem !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the needs. Motors can be cheaper to make with less parts and possibly no brushes by rotating magnets instead of copper coils; or just using magnets which are cheaper than the copper coils.

      If you only need the amount of flux that a magnet provides then why add weight and waste power making an electromagnet? I believe there is a point where the copper takes more power than the magnet; for larger things copper wins because it can out perform the magnet and one can also control the strength of the field making it easier to start turning or fine tune the power to match the load on the motor for example. There are trade offs between the two and I've not yet learned the specifics but I've seen various motor designs in different niches that seem to address different requirements.

      Magnets can work well in many cases due to the really fast drop off flux as you move further away-- so you could have a thick copper coil but not get the field in the right place stronger than the magnets for the cost and/or efficiency. Besides, you can make magnets into any shape and copper coils you can't. Not to mention the heat copper generates!

  34. Re:My awkwardest first time... by ravenspear · · Score: 1

    wow that's the first outright troll post i've seen from kdawson. I guess he figured not enough of his jizm was on the site.

  35. Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's great news, it makes our local rare earth industry more viable.

  36. You are a moron, Coward. by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

    SSD's dramatically increase the speed of a computer during regular usage. The fastest spinner is a fraction of the speed of a low-end modern SSD. My mediocre Kingston puts all spinners to shame.

    Moron.

  37. Molycorp mine in CA is expanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110616006280/en/Molycorp-Announces-Completion-Capital-Raise-781-Million

  38. Recycling magnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The materials used for magnets in new drives are nearly identical to those used ten years ago. At the rate HDDs are decomissioned and discarded I would say recycling old HDDs for their magnets should be a decent business.

    Regarding the chinese restriction, I think the objective is to push SSDs deeper into the market, since they are still big producers of memory chips. Even a short term advantage on them would make a significant difference in the market.

  39. Re:My awkwardest first time... by slackbheep · · Score: 1

    Examine the name closely, I got a laugh out of it too.

  40. Where does a rare earth metal come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rare Earth metals are extracting from Earth when mining for other metals is performed. China is simply taking the extra step to refine the extraced material for those rare Earth metals. If prices get high enough, other countries can easily start refining their process to get the same rare Earth metals. They have 97% of the rare Eath metal market, but tha does notmean that other contries can not fill the void if they want to.

  41. nixon went to china.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to combat russia economically he won and you al lost

  42. Recycling and US supplies of rare earths by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    IIRC the US has a lot of rare earths, they are simply not exploited because of environmental concerns.

    Also, I wonder how much rare earths are in old electronics and landfills.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  43. Kudos for a highly intelligent comment. by toby · · Score: 1

    I don't think China is doing anyone a favor by trashing their environment for short term profit

    Could not agree more. Ultimately, China's heedlessness is helping manufacture future catastrophe for every living thing on the planet. As is all negligence of environmental concerns.

    --
    you had me at #!
  44. Re:My awkwardest first time... by ravenspear · · Score: 1

    LOL, good catch

  45. Old mines in the US by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    I posted on this earlier from my phone, but it looks like it never showed up. We DO have old mines here in the US and at least one of them has re-opened. If you live in Southern California or Las Vegas, you can go see it. It's in the Mojave Desert just off of I-15, near the exit to Nipton, California. Look to the north as you're crossing that little mountain. China has been (probably illegally) dumping Rare Earth metals on us at below their cost for some time. The purpose was to drive our domestic producers out of business. But the ore is still there in the ground, the mining claims are still valid, and in some cases it isn't that difficult to re-open the mines. Yes, the prices of hard drives will go up. A little. Because the prices of Rare Earths has been artificially low. But there's no Armageddon looming here, just a correction that will probably be relatively small.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  46. Harbor Freight by gearloos · · Score: 1

    No big deal, just get your drives at Harbor Freight.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"