Qualcomm designs chips, from my experience based on ARM not x86, and outsources the actual making of chips to other companies (TSMC, Samsung, whomever).
Almost certainly not Samsung as Samsung isn't Pure-play, its IDM. Maybe Qualcomm can use them for some things, but probably not ARM SoC's.
I don't know much about foundries but I remember TSMC had some problems getting to this node as does everybody. What I do know is that fabs are all TSMC does. Intel is a bigger beast that does fabbing, software, motorboards, chip design, etc.
It is this, but I don't think its in the way you think.
Intels problem is that it cannot sell FAB time because they are vertically integrated. Intel builds a FAB and runs its next gen chips off of it for a few years, then they are stuck looking for something to do with the FAB when it is no longer current-gen. The problem is this specifically. Intel is competing with just about every FAB on the planet in this older-gen market (unlike with their desktop chips) so therefore margins are thin even on much older FAB's that are good enough to satisfy the bulk of the markets needs for all these secondary sub-products (drive controllers, etc...)
There are 3 kinds of semiconductor fabricators:
1) Vertically integrated like Intel. Only they can use their FABs.
2) Integrated device manufacturer like Samsung. They can sell FAB time to other companies so long as there isnt a conflict of interest.
3) Fair-play like TSMC. They only sell FAB time.
TSMC's revenue is now approaching Intel's, and unlike Intel they can keep all their FABs busy making money, so the outlook for Intel is grim without a serious restructuring, which they are doing (see recent massive layoffs, and bullshit marketing about their new "cloud strategy")
I've posted more than once about this on slashdot, and each time I end with the same recommendation: Sell your Intel stock.
He means AMD failed to anticipate Intels anti-trust abuses, built a bunch of FABs that would be grossly under-utilized because of those abuses, and was then forced to spin them off into an independent company based on the Pure-play model so that other companies could buy time on the FABs without any conflicts of interest.
Intel would have been the next Motorola had it not been for those anti-trust abuses.
Look at any standard library or application framework and you will not find any cache oblivious algorithms.
Linked lists are just traditionally implemented linked lists. Hash tables are just traditionally implemented hash tables. Trees are just traditionally implemented trees. Even sorting will be a ham-fisted quicksort.
pretty much only assembly language programmers give a shit, mainly because they are the only ones that understand the issues. Any exceptions you find are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I can't think of a good reason not to have free public transportation besides the classic line "But who's gonna pay for it?"...
How about "Will this solve the problem I am trying to solve?"
The answer is probably no, that it will not solve your smog problem. It would have a minimal impact on particulate emissions that are due to transportation. Getting even 5% of the people to use public transport that do not use it already would be a huge success, and that at most reduces emissions by.... 5%.
Public transport is already cheaper than driving. Cost isnt enough incentive. You would have to pay people to ride to provide enough incentive.
There arguably is a cost. Perhaps one can shrug it off as in "meh, the bus is scheduled anyway. The only point in time where it might be problematic is during rush hours when you need to field a few more busses." Or perhaps not.
The set of people that would be paying for the service but now dont have to is the cost. This cost is pushed on to the tax payers, and the bulk of state and local tax dollars are surely paid by the middle class and the poor since Illinois has a single-rate income tax (a flat tax.)
This progressive policy has a regressive consequence. Free rides should be given to the poorest people, not the oldest people.
Therefore a 14 layered 14nm chip would be labeled as 1nm?
Give or take... but they are probably still 15 years away from actual 14nm feature sizes. If current features were simply reduced by a factor of 15 across the board, the smallest feature size would still be about 3nm.
None of the features will be as small as 10nm in size, just like none of Intels 14nm chips have features even close to as small as 14nm.
The current trend in labeling since transistors started on their vertical adventures is to extrapolate an "equivalent" feature size based on overall transistor density. These TSMC-made chips have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips, just as Intels "10nm" chips will have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips.
Intel is only "refining" the 14nm design through the natural course of their "tick-tock" process (which has now added a third "tock", which seems likely to be due to lack of real competition).
No its because their 10nm test yields aren't even close to economical.
Intel has blown their advantage. I'm sure someone will reply with "but its not real 10nm" while being completely ignorant that not only isn't Intel doing "real 14nm" that they are the ones that invented lying about feature size.
Okay, yeh, the government taxes $1 mil/ job out of the economy. If that was the case, then given that MILLIONS of people in the U.S. that work, the government would be rolling in money.
In the simplest model, sure, we have 4% more money and 4% more stuff, so prices should be stable, right? But instead demand leads supply in a growing economy, so prices go up.
You think that there isnt a demand for currency and that supply and demand dont also apply to it, because you continue to be an ignorant fuck.
It is *your* model that is "simple" while you try to attribute your error to me.
You took an economics course and forgot 90% of it. You remain ignorant and will continue to remain ignorant while you continue to think that making things up is a substitute for veracity.
Inflation is a symptom of a healthy economy. The money supply should be increasing as the economy increases.
Just wow at the completer ignorance of what inflation is.
If both increase at the same rate, there is no inflation, you economically ignorant fuck. Why are you pretending to be knowledgeable about a subject that you clearly are not? Surely you know that you arent knowledgeable on this subject.
Why are you being dishonest? What gain are you getting by pretending to know something that is patently not true and therefor you dont know?
Extremist meaning content actually calling for immediate violence against others, or just being against safe spaces, multigender pronouns, and other nonsense like that?
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand
The issue at hand is that a bunch of companies are joining forces to control what you are allowed to see, and are starting off with one of the biggest boogie-men available to them as their reasoning for doing it.
Perhaps you thought that there was a more important issue here?
Either that or tar and feather your local elected officials for being greedy
Exactly. My guess is the none of biggest complainers here have any idea whose desk their local franchise agreement lands on whenever its up for renewal or debate. Therefore they could not have petitioned this office, nor could they have made intelligent decisions about who to vote for whenever this office is up for election. These complainers are noisy but toothless. They cant even vote out the corruption because they have no idea who to vote out.
You would think that in the Democrat mecca known as Seattle, that a successful government effort to improve the local infrastructure and its offerings would have happened, right? Right?
My observation is that democrats petition bodies of government where they have minimal influence (federal/global) instead of bodies of government where they have maximum influence (state/local.)
I live nowhere near a major city yet my cable internet speeds have been regularly upgraded, now sitting at 50mbit for $50/mo with no television service and its the second lowest tier available. On top of that, the local cable franchise has changed hands twice in the past decade starting with a small local cable company, moving to a larger regional cable company, and now onto a larger still national company.
Now both my town and my state are in general run by Democrats, but these are not traditional Democrats because we have a long standing history of giving both major parties the middle finger by voting in independents at all levels when the party choices are either looking to federal matters instead of local matters or are otherwise still complete dip-shits.
You see it here on slashdot, the incredible amount of hate for Trump, who will soon hold the only federal office in the land. This ties right in with the Democrats focus on federal matters instead of local matters.
My advice is for everyone to get involved where you will have a real influence, your local government. It is there that your desires may most likely be realized. If the local government is extremely corrupt, do something about it.
Slashdot Mirror
While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008.
I think we've found someone that reads the fake news.
It says $6 per taxpayer.
Qualcomm designs chips, from my experience based on ARM not x86, and outsources the actual making of chips to other companies (TSMC, Samsung, whomever).
Almost certainly not Samsung as Samsung isn't Pure-play, its IDM. Maybe Qualcomm can use them for some things, but probably not ARM SoC's.
I don't know much about foundries but I remember TSMC had some problems getting to this node as does everybody. What I do know is that fabs are all TSMC does. Intel is a bigger beast that does fabbing, software, motorboards, chip design, etc.
It is this, but I don't think its in the way you think.
Intels problem is that it cannot sell FAB time because they are vertically integrated. Intel builds a FAB and runs its next gen chips off of it for a few years, then they are stuck looking for something to do with the FAB when it is no longer current-gen. The problem is this specifically. Intel is competing with just about every FAB on the planet in this older-gen market (unlike with their desktop chips) so therefore margins are thin even on much older FAB's that are good enough to satisfy the bulk of the markets needs for all these secondary sub-products (drive controllers, etc...)
There are 3 kinds of semiconductor fabricators:
1) Vertically integrated like Intel. Only they can use their FABs.
2) Integrated device manufacturer like Samsung. They can sell FAB time to other companies so long as there isnt a conflict of interest.
3) Fair-play like TSMC. They only sell FAB time.
TSMC's revenue is now approaching Intel's, and unlike Intel they can keep all their FABs busy making money, so the outlook for Intel is grim without a serious restructuring, which they are doing (see recent massive layoffs, and bullshit marketing about their new "cloud strategy")
I've posted more than once about this on slashdot, and each time I end with the same recommendation: Sell your Intel stock.
He means AMD failed to anticipate Intels anti-trust abuses, built a bunch of FABs that would be grossly under-utilized because of those abuses, and was then forced to spin them off into an independent company based on the Pure-play model so that other companies could buy time on the FABs without any conflicts of interest.
Intel would have been the next Motorola had it not been for those anti-trust abuses.
Nobody learned.
Look at any standard library or application framework and you will not find any cache oblivious algorithms.
Linked lists are just traditionally implemented linked lists. Hash tables are just traditionally implemented hash tables. Trees are just traditionally implemented trees. Even sorting will be a ham-fisted quicksort.
pretty much only assembly language programmers give a shit, mainly because they are the only ones that understand the issues. Any exceptions you find are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I can't think of a good reason not to have free public transportation besides the classic line "But who's gonna pay for it?"...
How about "Will this solve the problem I am trying to solve?"
The answer is probably no, that it will not solve your smog problem. It would have a minimal impact on particulate emissions that are due to transportation. Getting even 5% of the people to use public transport that do not use it already would be a huge success, and that at most reduces emissions by.... 5%.
Public transport is already cheaper than driving. Cost isnt enough incentive. You would have to pay people to ride to provide enough incentive.
There arguably is a cost. Perhaps one can shrug it off as in "meh, the bus is scheduled anyway. The only point in time where it might be problematic is during rush hours when you need to field a few more busses." Or perhaps not.
The set of people that would be paying for the service but now dont have to is the cost. This cost is pushed on to the tax payers, and the bulk of state and local tax dollars are surely paid by the middle class and the poor since Illinois has a single-rate income tax (a flat tax.)
This progressive policy has a regressive consequence. Free rides should be given to the poorest people, not the oldest people.
...because the location of malls is the final arbiter of what is rural and what isn't.
Therefore a 14 layered 14nm chip would be labeled as 1nm?
Give or take... but they are probably still 15 years away from actual 14nm feature sizes. If current features were simply reduced by a factor of 15 across the board, the smallest feature size would still be about 3nm.
None of the features will be as small as 10nm in size, just like none of Intels 14nm chips have features even close to as small as 14nm.
The current trend in labeling since transistors started on their vertical adventures is to extrapolate an "equivalent" feature size based on overall transistor density. These TSMC-made chips have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips, just as Intels "10nm" chips will have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips.
Intel is only "refining" the 14nm design through the natural course of their "tick-tock" process (which has now added a third "tock", which seems likely to be due to lack of real competition).
No its because their 10nm test yields aren't even close to economical.
Intel has blown their advantage. I'm sure someone will reply with "but its not real 10nm" while being completely ignorant that not only isn't Intel doing "real 14nm" that they are the ones that invented lying about feature size.
Okay, yeh, the government taxes $1 mil/ job out of the economy. If that was the case, then given that MILLIONS of people in the U.S. that work, the government would be rolling in money.
Tax revenue: $7.14 trillion
Sum of:
Federal: $3.64 trillion
State: $2.05 trillion
Local: $1.45 trillion
So yes, the government is rolling in money.
In the simplest model, sure, we have 4% more money and 4% more stuff, so prices should be stable, right? But instead demand leads supply in a growing economy, so prices go up.
You think that there isnt a demand for currency and that supply and demand dont also apply to it, because you continue to be an ignorant fuck.
It is *your* model that is "simple" while you try to attribute your error to me.
You took an economics course and forgot 90% of it. You remain ignorant and will continue to remain ignorant while you continue to think that making things up is a substitute for veracity.
Inflation is a symptom of a healthy economy. The money supply should be increasing as the economy increases.
Just wow at the completer ignorance of what inflation is.
If both increase at the same rate, there is no inflation, you economically ignorant fuck. Why are you pretending to be knowledgeable about a subject that you clearly are not? Surely you know that you arent knowledgeable on this subject.
Why are you being dishonest? What gain are you getting by pretending to know something that is patently not true and therefor you dont know?
Government destroys the tax money? Burns it?
Shatters it like a window.
..and yet when the government taxes that amount of money out of the economy...
Extremist meaning content actually calling for immediate violence against others, or just being against safe spaces, multigender pronouns, and other nonsense like that?
Whatever they want it to mean.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand
The issue at hand is that a bunch of companies are joining forces to control what you are allowed to see, and are starting off with one of the biggest boogie-men available to them as their reasoning for doing it.
Perhaps you thought that there was a more important issue here?
Either that or tar and feather your local elected officials for being greedy
Exactly. My guess is the none of biggest complainers here have any idea whose desk their local franchise agreement lands on whenever its up for renewal or debate. Therefore they could not have petitioned this office, nor could they have made intelligent decisions about who to vote for whenever this office is up for election. These complainers are noisy but toothless. They cant even vote out the corruption because they have no idea who to vote out.
You would think that in the Democrat mecca known as Seattle, that a successful government effort to improve the local infrastructure and its offerings would have happened, right? Right?
My observation is that democrats petition bodies of government where they have minimal influence (federal/global) instead of bodies of government where they have maximum influence (state/local.)
I live nowhere near a major city yet my cable internet speeds have been regularly upgraded, now sitting at 50mbit for $50/mo with no television service and its the second lowest tier available. On top of that, the local cable franchise has changed hands twice in the past decade starting with a small local cable company, moving to a larger regional cable company, and now onto a larger still national company.
Now both my town and my state are in general run by Democrats, but these are not traditional Democrats because we have a long standing history of giving both major parties the middle finger by voting in independents at all levels when the party choices are either looking to federal matters instead of local matters or are otherwise still complete dip-shits.
You see it here on slashdot, the incredible amount of hate for Trump, who will soon hold the only federal office in the land. This ties right in with the Democrats focus on federal matters instead of local matters.
My advice is for everyone to get involved where you will have a real influence, your local government. It is there that your desires may most likely be realized. If the local government is extremely corrupt, do something about it.
Or get involved in local politics.
I recently purchased a budget router, with my only purchasing filter being support of an open source firmware if I so chose to install it.
The budget router, a TP-LINK TL-WR940N, has the capability to limit the bandwidth use of any connected MAC address.
So you are wrong, or lying, and in either case pretending.
This slope is so slippery that there is no possible way to move any direction but down.
I never once proposed legislative wording, but referred to an informal communication method on a general forum.
You replied to someone criticizing its possible use in the legislation, and within that reply you defended its use in a completely unqualified manner.
Maye you should learn how to follow along before trying to discuss things on a "general forum."