Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Calls Broadcom's Bid For Qualcomm a National Security Risk (nytimes.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the growing-concerns dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): The United States government said Broadcom's proposed acquisition of rival chipmaker Qualcomm could pose a national security risk and called for a full investigation into the hostile bid. The move complicates an already contentious deal and increases the likelihood that Broadcom, which is based in Singapore, will end its pursuit of Qualcomm. Such an investigation is often a death knell for a corporate acquisition. A government panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or Cfius, noted, in part, that the potential risk was related to Broadcom's relationships with foreign entities, according to a letter from a United States Treasury official. It also said that the deal could weaken "Qualcomm's technological leadership," giving an edge to Chinese companies like Huawei. "China would likely compete robustly to fill any void left by Qualcomm as a result of this hostile takeover," the official said in the letter. The letter and the public call for an investigation reflects a newly aggressive stance by Cfius. In most cases, the panel operates in secret and weighs in after a deal is announced. In this instance, Cfius, which is made up of representatives from multiple federal agencies, is taking a proactive role and investigating before an acquisition agreement has even been signed.

91 comments

  1. Broadcom = buggy hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All I know is that Broadcom is synonymous with buggy hardware.

    Please let that company die.

    1. Re:Broadcom = buggy hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question :

      Could you please give some examples of this buggy hardware and the problems it causes ? Does this affect cell phones or set top boxes, or is it a problem that affects all Broadcom hardware ?

    2. Re:Broadcom = buggy hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, this is a dupe story by BeauHD, and msmash was nice enough to already highlight the issues on her blog.

      I hope you get terminal cancer this year, you worthless piece of shit.

    3. Re:Broadcom = buggy hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terminal cancer? Interesting, does it run Linux?

    4. Re:Broadcom = buggy hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For starters: this eventually turned out to be an unfixable hardware bug that persisted into the 2nd and 3rd generation of the Raspberry pi. It's less noticeable on pi 2 because of the higher clock rate, and the pi 3 has additional CPU cores.

    5. Re:Broadcom = buggy hardware by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get better news on reddit.

      I can get better news by face-rolling the keyboard in the search bar. It's not like the goalposts are particularly high, here.

      Seriously, I come here for the comments and discussions when it's not just screaming obscenities like monkeys flinging poo...yeah, I know...unicorns and hen's teeth these days.

      Point being, if you're coming to Slashdot for *news* then you're doing it wrong. It may have the word "news" in the motto, but this is not a current-news site by any stretch of the imagination.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Broadcom = buggy hardware by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

      I have an example; the O.E.M. broadcom wi-fi card on my vostro 1500 would exhibit buggy behavior running debian stable with factory firmware and the b43 module. Sometimes the card would just "disappear' from the pci bus. The half-assed workaround/voodoo ritual I came up with was to shutdown the laptop, remove the battery, and hold down the on/off button for a few seconds then plug the battery back in and start it up normally and low and behold the firmware loaded and wi-fi connectivity would be enabled. So yeah, buggy AF. Anecdotal, and because not windows. Don't know, don't care, buggy is as buggy does.

      My ultimate solution was a less than five dollar intel wi-fi card. Woo hoo, n is way faster than g. And no more wtf where did the wi-fi card go moments.

      --
      Serenity now, insanity later.
    7. Re:Broadcom = buggy hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an example; the O.E.M. broadcom wi-fi card on my vostro 1500 would exhibit buggy behavior running debian stable with factory firmware and the b43 module. Sometimes the card would just "disappear' from the pci bus. The half-assed workaround/voodoo ritual I came up with was to shutdown the laptop, remove the battery, and hold down the on/off button for a few seconds then plug the battery back in and start it up normally and low and behold the firmware loaded and wi-fi connectivity would be enabled. So yeah, buggy AF. Anecdotal, and because not windows. Don't know, don't care, buggy is as buggy does.

      My ultimate solution was a less than five dollar intel wi-fi card. Woo hoo, n is way faster than g. And no more wtf where did the wi-fi card go moments.

      The bistro 1500 is an obscenely low end laptop. It could have easily been dell's motherboard causing your issue. You get what you pay for. The BCM4XXX series chipsets are actually very robust.

  2. USA always using protectionist practices by DanCruthfield · · Score: 2

    Although I personally don't agree with this takeover attempt, I have to point the hypocrisy of the US.

    1. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have to point the hypocrisy of the US.

      What hypocrisy? Under Trump, the US is openly protectionist in both actions and advocacy. That is stupid, but it is not hypocritical.

    2. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not stupid, it's just different from what you're used to. Tariffs alone would be stupid. Quashing H1B's alone would be stupid. Extra scrutiny to foreign investment alone would be stupid*. All of the above plus a hefty corporate tax cut might actually lead to an improvement.

      Or maybe not so stupid if we realize the existence of a whole wide universe not captured by the single number on the bottom line. Milton Friedman never understood this but you can't just stockpile steel or microchips; you have to be able to make your own or you risk inviting potshots from people who can.

    3. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No that is singapore that is a protectionist regime. You cant buy a house or car there unless the government allows you to. When you die the government takes your house. If you swear to express yourself you cop an excessively heavy fine or even get caned. They still practice forced military service on its populance during peace. Most of their companies are government owned like singtel or they're run by retirement funds designed to takeover the profitable companies of other countries. They have no quibble buying other countries cows such as the energy and communication companies in Australia but at the same time they put up heavy obstacles to prevent foreign companies from doing the same to their country. The worst thing is their militant government has its fingers deep inside their own companies and they can never be trusted.

    4. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Username checks out

    5. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      Did you read why?
      This isn't protectionist. It's national defense. MILITARY!
      DOD over rules all

    6. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hypocritical part is expecting the rest of the world not to retaliate in kind.

    7. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok. Trump will let you suck his cock. You have done well, little cock sucker.

    8. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron, not any kind of economist. Economists say you're a fucking moron. Tariffs alone are stupid, we have tariffs and massive corporate tax cuts without any real incentive for it to be spent now. You're a fucking moron.

    9. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The hypocritical part is expecting the rest of the world not to retaliate in kind.

      Trump is expecting retaliation. His claim is that American can "win" a trade war.

      He is sort of right, in the sense that big economies lose less than small economies in a trade war. But still, everyone loses.

      The last really big trade war was in the 1930s. It didn't end well.

    10. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not stupid, it's just different from what you're used to.

      We've done a lot of bad shit and yet somehow this is proving to be one of the darker chapters of our nation's history.

      Tariffs alone would be stupid.

      Tariffs without cause (e.g. protectionism) are always stupid.

      Quashing H1B's alone would be stupid.

      H-1B visas have been abused to no end. Quashing them now is actually a fairly sane idea. The president has made no efforts to do so.

      Extra scrutiny to foreign investment alone would be stupid*.

      Actually, that's just called prudence. Why do you think there is a Committee on Foreign Investment in the first place?

      All of the above plus a hefty corporate tax cut might actually lead to an improvement.

      In a different economy, maybe. However, in our economy, it's going to hurt far more than it helps. FYI, there are no winners in trade wars.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Protectionism is actually left-wing stupidity. Most of the opposition to Trump's metal tariffs is coming from Republicans.

    12. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've done a lot of bad shit and yet somehow this is proving to be one of the darker chapters of our nation's history.

      Like the time Democrats fought for the right to own black people? Or are you talking about the time Democrats rounded up anybody who looked Japanese and shoved them in camps, whilst looting their property?

      Oh, yes, tax cuts are so dark.

    13. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't necessarily stupidity. The common opinion among economists and right-wingers that it's stupidity has historical baggage attached to it.

      Back in Adam Smith's day, just about everyone was a subsistence farmer and free trade would make everyone wealthier in absolute terms. Even a century ago, there wasn't much difference in the standard of living among nations that would trade with each other. Sixty years ago, Europe and Japan were decimated by war and "free trade" could only mean that the French sold us cheese, the Germans sold us beer, and both bought our computers and jet engines. And it's still true that rich nations ought not throw up trade barriers against other similarly rich nations.

      But...that's not what we've got right now and the free traders sound silly when they apply lessons learned under those circumstances to the situation of "free trade" with places where the prevailing wages are a tenth of what ours are here but the information and know-how flows freely. Maybe it's good for them, but it hollows us out.

    14. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      it's still true that rich nations ought not throw up trade barriers against other similarly rich nations.

      The biggest exporter of both steel and aluminum to America is Canada.

    15. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      And...you seem to be under the impression that I'm disagreeing with you over that.

    16. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

    17. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      They are if you've grown up with "you didn't build that" and "let's spread the wealth around."

    18. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Protectionism has been used by left and right. It's certainly not liberal, though.

    19. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      WW2 was a good thing?

    20. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The countries with the lowest trade barriers are Singapore, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. These are all countries with strong and growing economies. There are many examples of countries, such as Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan, that had closed economies, that then opened themselves to trade and prospered.

      Can you name even a single counterexample of a country that put up trade barriers, and saw their rate of growth increase?

    21. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, all those left wing farmers and manufacturing workers and their government handouts...

    22. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Protectionism has been used by left and right. It's certainly not liberal, though.

      "Liberal" means different things to different people.
      In Europe, it has the original meaning of what Americans call libertarian (free trade, free enterprise, social tolerance).
      In America, a "liberal" is a progressive, or what Europeans call "social democrats".
      In Australia, a "liberal" is a right wing conservative.

    23. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      They still practice forced military service on its populance during peace.

      To be fair, most countries force some form of national service on their citizenry. The US, Canada and a few others are exceptions in that they have a purely voluntary military. Though the US has a draft, most of the membership is strictly voluntary since the draft only applies during wartime.

      Some examples include Switzerland, UK (the Princes (Harry and Andrew) had to do it as well - so royalty is no exception), China (and likewise, most Asian countries like South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and plenty more). I'm fairly certain a lot of eastern European countries do as well.

    24. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Goldsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your heart's in the right place, but this is a bad question. Many countries use and have used trade barriers to great success.

      Right now, you can look at Canada (agriculture) and China (manufactured goods) as growth-with-trade-barrier successes.

      Historically, the US became a manufacturing power by having very high trade barriers through most of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Japan rebuilt it's economy behind steep trade barriers after WWII. Alexander Hamilton and England's Henry VII (the "businessman" king) were protectionists.

      But, you're right to point out that success often comes when you close (for a generation or two) and then re-open. What is the quality of life like behind trade barriers? It's not better. With trade barriers, you're effectively getting people to work harder for less money. This is something we're already doing very well in the US, and which we've found we can do with technological advancement faster and better than trade barriers. This is because developing new tech gives you access to new markets as you develop them, and during the highest profit stages of market development. Technology development is what we're good at, we should focus on that.

    25. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Right now, you can look at Canada (agriculture) and China (manufactured goods) as growth-with-trade-barrier successes.

      Neither of these is an example of a country that:
      1. Had few trade barriers.
      2. Increased trade barriers.
      3. Saw growth increase.

      Canada has barriers to trade in agriculture. But those barriers are not new, and are actually lower than they were in the past. They are pretty much universally recognized as stupid and counterproductive. Canadian farmers grow grain, instead of focusing on something better suited to their cooler climate such as canola, while America grows canola when it should be growing more grain. The barriers to trade keep farmers in each country from optimizing their crops, and trading for what they are not so good at growing. The Canadian tariffs are only there to buy votes, not because they make economic sense.

      While China has plenty of barriers, the situation was far worse in the past. China is actually an example of prosperity surging as trade barriers fell. It is possible that their prosperity would have risen even faster with fewer barriers.

    26. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      WW2 was a good thing?

      It was a good thing for the US economy. Everyone else got punched in the nuts and we came out ahead. All that prosperity where a bag boy could buy a house in the USA was based on WWII.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I'm trying to claim back the term for those (left or right), that espouse freedom, which tends to include modern social democrats.

      In the UK, the Liberal Party, 100 years ago, was relatively similar to that in Australia, for free trade. It was also socially progressive.

    28. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Whibla · · Score: 2

      Some examples include Switzerland, UK (the Princes (Harry and Andrew) had to do it as well - so royalty is no exception)...

      You are mistaken.

      Unlike Switzerland, the UK does not have mandatory military service, not even for royalty.

      The reason, as I understand it, that the Princes did serve was out of a sense of obligation (literally the notion of noblesse oblige). If, as titular leaders of the country's military, they were to give orders sending soldiers into combat they'd better be in a position to understand what being a soldier is. There is also historical precedent to consider. When it comes to the nobility it has long been the case that the first (male) child was groomed to inherit, the second went to serve, while the third would often go into the church.

      Anyway, when it comes to the modern age, to emphasise, while serving in the military might have been expected of them it was not required of them.

    29. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like the time Democrats fought for the right to own black people?

      You mean the right-wing Southern Conservative "Democrats" who have been dead for over a century but that the "Republicans" of today laud as heroes for standing up for states's rights while vehemently insisting we hold sacred their monuments to racism and oppression?

      Or are you talking about the time Democrats rounded up anybody who looked Japanese and shoved them in camps, whilst looting their property?

      You mean the "Democrats" and "Republicans" of the 1940s who allied with Communism just to fight a war against the right-wing Fascists who engaged in industrial genocide the reality of which is happily denied by the "good people" in the White Nationalist movement of today?

      Oh, yes, tax cuts are so dark.

      You mean "tax largess" to the wealthy kleptocrats, and yes, that is some dark-ass corruption, as it was back in the 1830s and 1870s, and 1920s, and...

      Well, the fact is, Trump might have just as well sold out the country, at least then we'd be renters, not debtors.

    30. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You had me interested in what you were saying a little to see where you were going. Then you mentioned a hefty corporate tax cut leading to an improvement which removed all doubt you didn't know what you were talking about.

      A hefty corporate tax cut would not lead to any improvement as their tax code is already setup by design expressly to prevent that conflict of interest as both the money they reinvest into their companies or pay their employees are already tax deductible and the main things they are paying taxes on is their profits after expenses, equity in their large purchases and money they pay out to their shareholders.

      All that tax cut would do would lead to higher profit margins and profits for the shareholders and companies which would not be reinvested as that money wouldn't be taxed anyways if it were invested.

    31. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US (and in fact most western) economy has a long way to go before it'll ever show any sort of prosperity like you mention. I'd say it's possibly as much as a "sea change", and it would involve a lot of rich people losing a lot of the wealth. This is all just window dressing.

    32. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a thread about US blocking a foreign takeover, not about tariffs. Do try to keep up.

    33. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are if you've grown up with "you didn't build that" and "let's spread the wealth around."

      Just think how that is compared to growing up with "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine" and "Hey, they let me grab them by the pussy!"

    34. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You mean RINO's?

    35. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      So you glanced at the messenger's badge and either didn't bother to read the message or didn't understand it.

      The issue of protectionism is entirely orthogonal to the concept of "left and right" (which are themselves bullshit flags for the naive to rally beneath while they're in fact being dividided and conquered but that's another story).

    36. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      We've done a lot of bad shit and yet somehow this is proving to be one of the darker chapters of our nation's history.

      We've also done a lot of stupid shit such as falling farther and farther into debt (the "we" being the American people, not some abstract concept of "the nation"). For decades, we've gotten fuck all in the way of solutions and suggestions; globalist-interests continued to milk the situation (monetizing the race to the bottom and ensuring they're holding all the cards when there're no other players left) while their shills assured us that everything was fine.

      Of course they've gotten loud and shrill.

    37. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You mean the right-wing Southern Conservative "Democrats" who have been dead for over a century

      Yeah, them... and congrats, Mr. Education; you're only off by a century.

    38. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Link not copy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    39. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, them ... and congrats, Mr. Education; you're only off by a century.

      Let's review:

      Like the time Democrats fought for the right to own black people?

      Sorry, but the Civil War ended in 1865. It's 2018. A century ago was 1918. You'll have to work hard to find a serving Civil War-era politician who lived past that mark.

      On the other hand, it's trivially easy to find the multitude of Stalwart Republicans today who will zealously proclaim their devotion to these dead individuals who fought for "freedom" and "liberty" against the despotic Lincoln. Heck, the stooge in the White House proclaimed how he loved the belligerent Jackson, famed for betraying the Cherokee, known for corruption and malfeasance, as the hallmark to aspire towards.

      But do go on, the more you wring your hands over the ghost of Dixie, the more we remember who's fighting today to keep that spirit alive. We know what flags fly in your heart.

    40. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap. Just about ALL COUNTRIES enacted trade barriers during the period of the greatest growth during the original industrial revolution expansion. What planet are you from anyway?

      The British had trade barriers when they built their empire. In fact it is one reason cited for the development of US machine tools. So there, the biggest dog of the lot. The British Empire grew WHILE it had trade barriers. To go on would basically just be a complete history of the industrial expansion of the world. EVERYONE had trade barriers. It was the status quo.

      Something to consider. If your ideology leads you to believe something that is wholly and ridiculously false, then maybe you should engage in some critical examination. You are completely mistaken if you think that protectionism has not allowed for expansion. Outrageously and laughably mistaken. Perhaps you should examine where you got your notions and why your notions would lead you to issue such ridiculous and false assumptions.

      The history of industrial expansion in our world has largely been a history of protectionism. It was the status quo. So choose a different argument against trade barriers. Economic and industrial expansion has already been proven to be possible in an environment of trade barriers. You will have to argue that some other approach is better. The argument that trade barriers disallow growth is already completely and thoroughly proven false. Take a history class or read a book not written as propaganda for goodness sake.

    41. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      ...while America grows canola when it should be growing more grain.

      Err...I don't think the US has any sort of problems with shortages of growing grains. We grow too much as it is.

      We need to be growing more diverse vegetables, more green leafy stuff....more nutritionally dense foods for the populace, and less grain and corn for worthless junk foods production.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    42. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok. Trump will let you suck his cock. You have done well, little cock sucker.

      You're really focused on that part of Trump's anatomy. I'm sure RightWingNutJob will let you take it in your pie hole instead. Have fun.

    43. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like how Trent Lott, then Republican Senate leader declared his wish that Strom Thurmond had won the Presidency?

      Yeah, I'll have to grant, that's not fighting for the right to own black people. Thurmond just wanted to fuck them illicitly. Disreputable, but not quite legally sanctioned property.

      Sorry dude, you only exposed yourself.

      I get it though, you think IOKIYAR is the mantra to live by. That's why you swore undying devotion to the Birther-in-Chief. After all, once you've abdicated your very soul, what does it matter what destitution and depravity you espouse?

    44. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you glanced at the messenger's badge and either didn't bother to read the message or didn't understand it.

      Some people's names are ironic. Other people's names are entirely spot-on.

      The issue of protectionism is entirely orthogonal to the concept of "left and right" (which are themselves bullshit flags for the naive to rally beneath while they're in fact being dividided and conquered but that's another story).

      The issue of being apologist for Trump is the matter currently under discussion here, not the issue of protectionism, the thread moved on, and you missed it. For whatever reason.

      Remember, however, this is the Donald Trump who praises tyrants and despots, while denouncing freely elected politicians who don't knuckle down and give him obeisance.

      The same goes for his sycophants. Fervently devoted to unwaveringly espousing his madcap haphazard incoherent agenda.

    45. Re: USA always using protectionist practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is this not modded down? what a fucking partisan loon. lets play the blame game because i dont want to admit any mistakes my party made, past or present.

    46. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      The former is still worse. Learning "you didn't build that" leaves you hopeless. Hearing the latter...well you shouldn't grab at women, but you should aspire to personal success and at least that's some model of it.

    47. Re:USA always using protectionist practices by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      In Australia, a "liberal" is a right wing conservative.

      And to the point ... the traditional meaning of 'liberal' in Australia arises out of the dispute between free traders (liberals) and protectionists in the early years of federation. It was an irony of fate that the later 'Liberal Party,' when it was formed in 1945 out of the ruins of the conservative United Australia Party, went into coalition with the protectionist Country Party (subsequently renamed to National Party) who were instrumental in erecting serious tariff barriers which were left (which might also be viewed as ironic) to the social democrats (Australian Labor (sic) Party) to begin taking down.

      Also the Liberal Party is understood as having a (only slightly right of centre) 'liberal' wing as well as a fully fledged "right wing conservative" wing, though one might be excused from noticing it, so much do the 'liberals' in the party cower before the 'conservatives'.

      Finally, just to confuse ourselves, we sometimes use 'liberal' almost as American use it, called "small-l liberal" as opposed to "large-L Liberal" (ie. member of the main conservative party).

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  3. P. J. O'Rourke by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

    -- P. J. O'Rourke

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:P. J. O'Rourke by beckett · · Score: 1

      Nobody reads the rules to Monopoly until a fight breaks out.

    2. Re: P. J. O'Rourke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's excellent!! Thanks!

    3. Re:P. J. O'Rourke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that's so illegal and inappropriate that people go prison for it all the time. All the time!

      The economic musings of a government entity who should focus on national security would be enough to sue the government here, in the other side of the pond.

    4. Re:P. J. O'Rourke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CATO crap stinks bad.

      All buying and selling are subject to law. All the way back to mud huts and wooden clubs. The only issue is what the rules are. Plundering is where there is no law. Trade is where there is law.

      Snarky snipes to get a rouse from the rabble aren't really a good basis for understanding the nature of trade and government.

      P J O'Rourke's most notable writing is about how to drive while getting a hand job.

  4. (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative sou by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can we just dispense with linking paywalled sources in the first place?

    It's definitely a poor idea to allow Huwei or however the fuck it's spelt to dominate this space.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  5. broadcom will actually have to do R&D shock by johnjones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Instead of taking over companies and rinsing them of all their assets...

    lets see broadcom actually produce some new products from LSI and Brocade maybe ?

    they are headquartered in singapore to pay as little tax as possible...

  6. Broadcom is a US company FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care if they have a building in Singapore. They are not a security risk.

    1. Re: Broadcom is a US company FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they where is and bought by Avago

    2. Re: Broadcom is a US company FFS by jrumney · · Score: 1

      And Avago was spun out of HP (via Agilent), which is also a US company.

    3. Re:Broadcom is a US company FFS by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. They have no allegiance to the US. If they did, they would not have moved their HQ outside the US.

      You want Commerce, State and the Navy helping you negotiate deals and protecting your hardware & IP, you damn well better help foot the bill for that shit.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  7. The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We all remember the original Red Dawn, the movie where Russian troops invade the US and high school kids carry out guerilla warfare against the invading Russians.

    Red Dawn 2064 opens with Evgeny Shamalov, the first candidate of the new UltraCon-Republican party, being sworn is as President of the United States. Sharmalov, it is revealed, lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college in an election widely regarded as having been rigged.

    Flash back to 2013. We see a small jet land at a private airport outside Miami. A very pregnant Yekaterina Vladimirovna Tikhonova Sharmalov (nee Putin) is helped down the steps and into a waiting limo which whisks her away to a hotel reminiscent of Mar-A-Lago. A few days later she goes into labor and delivers a baby boy. A baby boy she names Evgeny.. Days later they fly home to Russia in possession of an American birth certificate.

    Flash forward to 2064 again. Smarmolov quickly moves to cement his power, taking control with an iron fist. Russian billionaires move to the US in record numbers. Just like the Norman invasion of England in 1066 where the Norman nobility take over, except now it's the new Russian nobility and Americans are the new serfs.

    High school kids that try to rise up are quickly eliminated by US Air Force Predator drones strikes, flown by our own US military. The kids have AR-15s – America never passed reasonable gun control – but they didn't stand a chance against Predators and guided missile strikes.

    -- Americanus

    1. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There's already a Red Dawn remake. It's called AmeriGeddon.

      The plot involves the US government conspiring with the UN to launch a terrorist attack upon the US to use as a pretext for confiscating all guns, because armed Americans are the only thing that stands in the way of the UN's ambition to create one world government. It's basically a right-wing fantasy. It's awful, but amusingly awful.

    2. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      High school kids that try to rise up are quickly eliminated by US Air Force Predator drones strikes, flown by our own US military. The kids have AR-15s – America never passed reasonable gun control – but they didn't stand a chance against Predators and guided missile strikes.

      -- Americanus

      This is a common military strategic thinking mistake made by top US military brass and armchair computer war games players.

      The Afghan and Iraqi insurgents only have homemade Kalashnikovs, RPGs and IEDs! We will easily crush them with our M1 Abram tanks, Predator and guided missile strikes! We will defeat them in a few weeks!

      Well, after 15 years, the US military still hasn't defeated them. The US military met the same fate in Vietnam. I remember in the 70s, everyone in the US said that we would never repeat the same mistakes made there.

      Oops! We forgot, and thought we could defeat guerilla insurgents with a conventional army. And we repeated the same mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      How did the UK do in trying to defeat the IRA?

      They didn't, and were forced into a peace process with known terrorist murderers. Or freedom fighters, depending on your personal political beliefs.

      A high school kid with an assault weapon hidden under his bed will not defeat the US military. But he can indefinitely harass and annoy them causing casualties that will eventually force them to give up.

      Oh, where will these high school kids get their weapons . . . ? The same place they get their drugs today. All the US military might cannot prevent drugs from being smuggled into the country . . . weapons will be no problem either.

      And IEDs, just how will the high school kids make them . . . ? The same way I did in high school. Take a bottle of iodine crystals and mix it into household ammonia cleaning fluid. Strain the resulting precipitate through a coffee filter, and let it dry . . . somewhere in the shade, not in sunlight! When it is dry, poke at it with a pencil.

      Fun, fun, fun.

      The Palestinian terrorists even produce deadly souped up bottle rockets called Qassams, which use aluminum powder and sulfur for fuel. Oh, and "Carlo" machine guns.

      So, "Red Dawn" was a seriously silly movie . . . but the effectiveness of a guerilla fighters against a conventional military force should not be underestimated.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can defeat guerrilla insurgents with a conventional army. We're seeing it happen right now in Syria. Sri Lanka just recently did so in its civil war. The US has even done it before: read some history about the Indian wars, or the Philippine-American war. The issue though is that it tends to require a level of brutality that is currently politically untenable in the United States.

    4. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The issue though is that it tends to require a level of brutality that is currently politically untenable in the United States.

      And not just politically. American soldiers committed suicide in record numbers in Iraq. What do you think those numbers would be like if they were massacring their neighbors at home?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I saw the trailer at Apple website, I wasn't sure if it was parody, or at least deeply sarcastic take on US subcultures, or not. This far out we have gone so far. By the way, the Australians have a Red Dawn remake as well, filled with dream-filled teenagers who just want to live their lives at the beat of the music they enjoy when the combined troops of Oceania invade because they can't implement population control. And occasionally it all looks like a music video.

    6. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      A high school kid with an assault weapon hidden under his bed will not defeat the US military. But he can indefinitely harass and annoy them causing casualties that will eventually force them to give up.

      Yeah. I saw that movie, too.

      Wolverines!

    7. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      How about the movie where a corrupt political party holds a fake primary for a candidate, who happened to leak highly classified information while purposefully violating public records law. They use their shills in the media to slime the opponent, who is an upstanding senator who refuses to accept corporate bribes and whose rapidly rising popularity is a threat to their agenda.

      Someone on the inside of the party who supports the good candidate discovers what is really going on, and has access to copy the internal emails and upload it to a world-renown whistle blowers site. The plot gets exposed, but the poor whistleblower gets murdered and the crime never gets investigated.

      Then after the upstart senator is dealt with, the terrible corrupt candidate faces off with a slightly less terrible candidate for president. They pay millions to have a foreign agent write up fake blackmail material, and use insiders inside federal agencies to even spy on the opposition and make an 'insurance policy' just in case the corrupt villian somehow loses the election.

      Then when the slightly less terrible person wins the presidency to everyone's surprise, the corrupt party becomes desperate to find a way to pass the blame for losing. The same shills who smeared the good senator now blame an enemy country for 'hacking' the email server, and rigging the election, and accuse the new president of actually being a secret ally with the enemy even though there isn't any evidence of that at all.

      The evil plot gets exposed yet again by actual journalists, but almost noone hears about it because the people that control most of the news media and social media platforms want people to believe the bullshit narrative. Even when the 'insurance policy' blows up in the face of the insiders, almost nothing happens as a result.

      The movie ends with people who understand whats going on shaking their heads in disgust at all the propaganda. It fades to black with a really worthless comment made by a paid shill on some tech site that is upmodded as interesting.

    8. Re:The real security risks is Donald J. Trump by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      And not just politically. American soldiers committed suicide in record numbers in Iraq. What do you think those numbers would be like if they were massacring their neighbors at home?

      Depends on how good the Us vs Them propaganda has become.

      Not that good just yet. I saw a pickup truck on the highway Monday with a permanently disabled license plate surrounded by a US Marine Corp plate holder, a US service disabled veteran sticker, and right next to it... a black with white lettering RESIST sticker.

  8. National security risk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure USA would survive this threat.
    Qualcomm, Intel, Apple, FB, Google, MS, IBM, ... The rest of the world has been coping just fine.

  9. Protectionist from who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/news/companies/broadcom-singapore-us-move-trump/index.html

    Broadcom is not a Singaporean company. Its HQ is inside the USA

    The only 'risk' there is, is that its CEO is, unfortunately, not a White dude

    Hock Tan, the CEO of Broadcom is an ethnic Chinese from Malaysia, although he already is a naturalized citizen of the United States of America

    The whole 'national risk' is based on race

    In other words, if the CEO of Broadcom is Shanghai Bill, a White dude, the US government won't even raise an eyebrow

  10. Military worship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is a Military worshiping dictatorship, everything is about national security for them.

  11. Look more closely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm from New Zealand, and I think this a quite an oversimplification. Australia has much higher trade barriers than NZ, and has much higher growth (they have had something like 28 years now without a recession). This is because they have a big enough population to sustain their own heavy industries, and abundant natural resources that are in high demand.

    The countries you list are all very small either population and/or resource wise. They have to trade, or their people go without. It doesn't really prove anything as to whether protectionist policies are useful or not.

    I generally agree that trade barriers are stupid, but there is also the valid counter point that other countries do not necessarily play the game fairly. There is no easy solution to this, because if a country reacts by putting up its own barriers (tariff or non-tariff) then you just start a tit-for-tat trade war which most certainly is very damaging to all involved. But doing nothing can invite further abuses from your trade partners.

    Personally I think a lot of people want to find 'the one rule to rule them all' around trade and economics because it is intellectually satisfying. But I do not believe that exists in many areas of economics. Indeed, I think the greatest failing of neo-liberalism, is that it allowed intellectually incompetent people to sweep into power by proclaiming that the solution to every problem was simply 'leaving it to the market'. How else do you explain the bunch of idiot showmen/women who now dominate western politics.

  12. Endangered back doors, call 911! by xxxLCxxx · · Score: 2

    Everybody who ever grappled with driver BLOBs knows that Qualcomm* 'has an open heart' for people coming in via radio. This allows agencies to take over your phone easily via GPRS/LTE using an IMSI-catcher or simply by getting hooked in-between "by law" (after all, your're a potential terrorist).
    Now if Broadcom takes over Qualcomm this could jeopardize their neat back doors. Makes you want to cry, doesn't it? :-P

    ---
    *"Qual": noun, female; German for 'ordeal'.

    1. Re:Endangered back doors, call 911! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let it be taken over. Iron ore, silicon chips - its all the same.
      Now if they pull the National rustbelt card, Huawei can justly declare it a monopoly abusing markey power - and replicate the documented functionallity , and stuff up the back doors - which it will probably do so soon - after correcting speculative execution pipelines..

  13. acronym fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cfius? They could've just included the O and made it COFIUS pronounced Coffee Us but because they left it out now it's prounounced SIF E US like syphilis.

  14. Don't become another Sears! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how many companies/governments complain about Q'com, it is a company invests heavily on R&D, hires good people, and pays good salaries. The other B-company as we know today, is purely the product vulture capitalism. In such circumstance, how the company and employees are screwed while the owner makes a shitload money is Lampert and Sears. Be afraid, be very afraid ....

  15. Based in Singapore? Wikipedia says California.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am confused. Has Wikipedia ever lied?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcom

  16. Re:Based in Singapore? Wikipedia says California.. by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    Broadcom aka Avago

    Broadcom Limited (formerly Avago Technologies)
    ...

    Tan Hock Eng is the company's president and CEO. The company is incorporated in Singapore, and co-headquartered in San Jose, California (administrative) and Singapore (corporative). Avago took the Broadcom part of the Broadcom Corporation name after acquiring it in January 2016.

  17. Clinton foundation by wheeda · · Score: 1

    If they had initiated the hostile take over in 2016, they could have just made a donation to the Clinton Foundation. It worked well for Uranium One.

  18. Re:(Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

    Can we just dispense with linking paywalled sources in the first place?

    It's definitely a poor idea to allow Huwei or however the fuck it's spelt to dominate this space.

    Yes, but the solution is for American Companies to stop royally sucking, not putting up government acts of business obstruction.

    Recently America started crybabying about Chinese dominating the solar panel industry. BUT the reason that China dominates is THEY invested heavily in Solar power R&D at a time when The US of A made a decision to double-down on "fossil fuels".

    Choices have consequences, deal with it.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.