People have been building inductors on-die for many years. The trick is getting a high enough inductance (and max current) for a switcher. According to the Intel presentation they have magnetic material on die (Ni80 Fe20 WTF?) which AFAIK is new.
The Micrel data sheet says "internal inductor", not on-chip, and the Micrel web site puts it in the switching module category, so I doubt this is on-chip. Nice small pkg (planar magnetics?) but not the same as on-die. Similarly for the R-78, which is listed as a module.
a one-stage 12V to 0.9V conversion is just a pipe dream. The longer pdf presentation actually shows the motherboard-level 12V to 2.2V VR
Do current CPU VR's do a one-stage jump from 12V to 0.9V? If so it seems they'd have an efficiency advantage by avoiding a double conversion. 12V to 0.9V seems like a big jump for a buck converter, but perhaps there's another way.
You do not have to allow corporations at all. Bad idea, but you could ban them.
Banning them is not something I have, or would, advocate. However since you can ban them altogether, it's reasonable that you can ban them for specific purposes if you want. They exist, and can act, solely at the pleasure of the various state legislatures.
All a corporation is is a group of people getting together to do some economic activity. You don't have to permit that group the various extras like limited liability that corporation get.
It's not just a "group of people getting together to do some economic activity". The limited liability of the legal and financial abstraction that may be created (the corporation) by a group of people, is key to having large corporations, which explains why all large business organizations are corporations.
You couldn't ban group economic activity altogether though. Nor could you ban group protests, political parties, community groups, etc. You also can't ban a group from getting together to be a social club and also to be a political.
Where did I or anyone else here suggest banning any of those things?
A corporation doesn't have rights because it is a person, but because it is a group of people.
A corporation is not a group of people. It is a legal and financial abstraction. It may employ people and there may be people who own its stock, but that is far from the same thing. The employees and the stockholders retain their individual rights as honest-to-goodness flesh and blood people, and they continue to enjoy the right to assemble peaceably, but there need be no rights granted to a legal and financial abstraction, anymore than it has a right to exist.
The whole personhood thing is just a useful abstraction because the corporation acts as a unit.
That's the way it was historically. "Artificial persons" have been recognized in the law for centuries, but only in the sense that they can be party to a lawsuit. It's since the late 19th century that there have been bizarre Supreme Court decisions that give "artificial persons" rights, as though they were real people. That's way beyond what "artificial person" meant before, and certainly was not the intent of the authors of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Jefferson unabashedly spoke of corporations as things that should be "strangled in the crib". Nobody argued to the contrary.
I assume there's a lot more to it that "corporations can't run farms" since that would be unconstitutional.
Again you make the assertion that it would be unconstitutional, without making any argument or providing any evidence. Please explain.
You can reduce the inductor and capacitor sizes a lot by increasing the switching frequency.
But you can do that w/ an external regulator too. Apparently the secret is on-chip inductors. Now that's impressive. I'm surprised that some of the "analog" companies making switchers didn't come up with that first. I know Intel has good fab tech, but this seems more like the sort of funky thing analog guys would come up with first.
Now that's impressive, and I suspect the real secret to this. Not to say the semi design is trivial, but without the on-chip inductors you wouldn't have much. They weren't clear about it, but perhaps it means getting rid of the big filter caps, and relying on smaller caps for each regulator. It also explains the fast response time with a bunch of smaller regulators.
Perhaps it's vastly more efficient than a traditional voltage regulator? It is, you know, silicon fabbed by Intel. The undisputed leader in chip fabrication technology. (Seriously. They're conservatively at least 2 generations ahead of everyone else)
Maybe one generation ahead, but that's in digital chips. While things like switching regulators can be built on digital processes (it's been done before) it's generally not the optimal process. Maybe they've come up with some clever ways to build better switchers on a digital process than previously, but it's hard to believe it's better than a process designed for stuff like this.
Being 1/50th the size it will be welcome on mobile devices.
It's not clear how they measure "1/50th the size". I could be wrong but it sounds like marketing hype. With a switching regulator the inductors and capacitors generally take up much more real estate than the chip. If they have some magic way to reduce the inductor and capacitor sizes it isn't mentioned in the article (and that would be a much bigger deal than just putting the regulator on the die).
You could legitimately get rid of limited liability for corporate shareholders.
So who would bother to incorporate? I'll be the first to say that it's a bad idea because it would destroy a modern economy. Just don't forget that it's an artificial incentive meant to spur economic activity, and anything but a traditional property right or "freedom".
You cannot legitimately restrict the rights of the people on the basis of their having organized themselves.
The Constitution says that people have the right to assemble peacefully. It says nothing about what sorts of economic arrangements amongst them must be permitted.
As for your Nebraska example, I don't know anything about such laws.
If they are as simple as you imply, corporation can't farm, then not only would it be a reprehensible and arbitrary restriction on liberty
Until the general laws of incorporation were passed in various states, we were deprived of what liberty exactly? The right to create a seriously non-traditional financial arrangement that's only permitted because the law specifically allows this expedient?
it would be pretty obviously in violation of the 5th abd 14th ammendments
Perhaps under the sort of torturous legal reasoning that laughs at original intent, sails right past the living constitution, and goes into whatever fantastic creations are necessary to arrive at the desired conclusions. Not that it hasn't been done before. Personally I'll believe in corporate personhood when I can shake a corporation's hand.
P.S. Better tell the courts about these Constitutional problems, because the anti-corporate farming laws have passed numerous challenges at both the state and federal level.
details are sparse at this time, but it appears they had a subpoena for the information. The subpoena was delivered last Friday, well after the data was collected. However, that is allowed under certain circumstances. That is, when knowledge of the subpoena would ruin the investigation. Parties of interest don't need to have knowledge of warrants and subpoenas acquired during an active investigation. How well would a phone tap work if the person being tapped was told? Same thing here.
I'll assume you're more familiar with these procedures than me. Nevertheless it seems like an absurdly broad subpoena. Why not just ask for the phone records of everyone in DC (or wherever the hell the AP is).
Everything you say about press hypocrisy is true. Nevertheless I'm glad they targeted the press, as it's probably the only thing that will get them to squawk about this.
Campaign contributions like this are legal in most of Europe, so chances are you're just ill-informed.
Ill-informed about what? Where did the OP mention Europe? Does the fact that it's legal in most of Europe mean that it should be legal in the US (or legal in those European countries for that matter)?
oh and while at it make it a federal law that displayed prices in shops would include the sales taxes. it's fucking ridiculous, if you want a straight up example of what's wrong with the USA today it's 99c stores that charge 1.13(or whatever) for an item - the customer can't dodge paying it at the counter, so just fucking display the actual price
Why is that a good idea? In Europe (at least some parts - not sure about all) prices are listed as inclusive of VAT, which means that the tax is "hidden". Sure you can calculate the 15% (or whatever it is in your country - much higher than any US sales tax) that's going to VAT, but it doesn't hit you in the same way as getting a receipt that says you paid $X in sales tax. Especially fun when you buy a car.
if you're going to have any sales tax, then the only good choice is to have it the same all over in the same customs zone
But the EC is one big customs zone, yet the VAT varies from country to country. Don't forget that in the US there are states with larger populations than many European countries (e.g. all the Nordic countries).
gerrymandering by the VRA represents guaranteed Dem votes
Somebody ought to tell the Republicans in Texas. They've got some of the most outrageous gerrymandering in the country. Austin split between four districts, all of which go way out into the country. Upside-down Chinese dragon shaped district?
It would be pretty starling if you weren't allowed to exercise these rights in concert, for example by assembling into a corporation and lobbying or contributing to a campaign.
It wouldn't be startling at all. The fact that corporations can exist is only due to laws that permit them to exist. It's also well established that it's perfectly reasonable to limit what corporations can do. For example, in Nebraska farms can't be corporately owned or run.
In the early days of the Republic corporations were severely restricted. They could only be created by a special act of the legislature, and the corporate charter had to be narrow and specific about what business the corporation could conduct. For example, corporations were sometimes created to build and run turnpikes (toll roads). They couldn't decide later that they also wanted to get into the river boat business. And the corporate charters required periodic renewal (typically 5-10 years). Nor was that an empty threat. Corporations that didn't operate in the public interest could and did have their charters revoked.
The general laws of incorporation, which permit the existence of modern corporations, which don't require approval of the legislature, may engage in any business and have unlimited lifetime, dates only to the mid-19th century. It's hardly an ancient property right. The general laws of incorporation were passed in order to make it easier to create the sort of capital intensive businesses that the industrial revolution spawned. The limited liability aspect (a blatant violation of ancient property rights) was added in order to attract large numbers of investors, most of which did not have sufficient shares to exert much control. Basically they changed property rights that had existed in the common law for centuries in order to facilitate modern businesses. By itself that was a good idea, but never forget that corporations are entirely artificial creations of the law, and so can be limited by the law as seen fit.
I'm saying that coming to a site that focuses almost exclusively on computer technology and then complaining when topics relating to two of the biggest influences upon that technology arise is silly.
I do have an interest in computer technology, but I disagree that it's a topic "relating to two of the biggest influences upon that technology". It's merely a discussion about how one famous guy on TV seemed to feel about his former collaborator/rival. What next, a discussion about how Bill Gates feels about his wife and kids? It would have as much relevance to the technology.
The mere act of 'purchasing' does not mean you can do whatever you want, unless the purchase itself included the authorization.
In those old days, whose existence you doubt, buying something that contained patented technology automatically conferred the right to use the patented tech in the object that you bought. Anything else would be absurd. Here's our new patented waffle iron. License to use the patented part sold separately.
Of course in the good old days nobody sold items with patented tech where the item is inherently self-replicating. I'd argue that the fruits (ok, beans) of that patented technology logically belong to whoever made the purchase. If you want it to be otherwise, then why are you selling items with a built-in ability to self-replicate? Farmers have been selling seed for a very long time. It has always been understood, in fact so obvious as to not be questioned, that the buyer had the right to plant those seeds, and to use the seeds from those plants however he wished, including replanting.
This is a case of extending the government granted monopoly (aka patents) so that it overrides literally thousands of years of understood and accepted practice. Absent a specific law from congress that authorizes this, the courts are legislating from the bench.
If you don't care, then you are on the wrong site.
No, my comment was about "human interest" stories that involve famous people. It's like asking which presidential candidate you'd rather have a beer with. Who cares? I don't know either of these people personally. I also don't trust any description of what "they're really like" when it comes to people with carefully polished public images.
Slashdot Mirror
People have been building inductors on-die for many years. The trick is getting a high enough inductance (and max current) for a switcher. According to the Intel presentation they have magnetic material on die (Ni80 Fe20 WTF?) which AFAIK is new.
The Micrel data sheet says "internal inductor", not on-chip, and the Micrel web site puts it in the switching module category, so I doubt this is on-chip. Nice small pkg (planar magnetics?) but not the same as on-die. Similarly for the R-78, which is listed as a module.
a one-stage 12V to 0.9V conversion is just a pipe dream. The longer pdf presentation actually shows the motherboard-level 12V to 2.2V VR
Do current CPU VR's do a one-stage jump from 12V to 0.9V? If so it seems they'd have an efficiency advantage by avoiding a double conversion. 12V to 0.9V seems like a big jump for a buck converter, but perhaps there's another way.
This is a breakthrough in physics, not just in semiconductor processing.
What sort of a breakthrough in physics? Have they found a way around Maxwell's equations or something?
switching inductive loads creates ringing, which will degrade in time (through HCI) the switching transistors
What's "HCI"?
You do not have to allow corporations at all. Bad idea, but you could ban them.
Banning them is not something I have, or would, advocate. However since you can ban them altogether, it's reasonable that you can ban them for specific purposes if you want. They exist, and can act, solely at the pleasure of the various state legislatures.
All a corporation is is a group of people getting together to do some economic activity. You don't have to permit that group the various extras like limited liability that corporation get.
It's not just a "group of people getting together to do some economic activity". The limited liability of the legal and financial abstraction that may be created (the corporation) by a group of people, is key to having large corporations, which explains why all large business organizations are corporations.
You couldn't ban group economic activity altogether though. Nor could you ban group protests, political parties, community groups, etc. You also can't ban a group from getting together to be a social club and also to be a political.
Where did I or anyone else here suggest banning any of those things?
A corporation doesn't have rights because it is a person, but because it is a group of people.
A corporation is not a group of people. It is a legal and financial abstraction. It may employ people and there may be people who own its stock, but that is far from the same thing. The employees and the stockholders retain their individual rights as honest-to-goodness flesh and blood people, and they continue to enjoy the right to assemble peaceably, but there need be no rights granted to a legal and financial abstraction, anymore than it has a right to exist.
The whole personhood thing is just a useful abstraction because the corporation acts as a unit.
That's the way it was historically. "Artificial persons" have been recognized in the law for centuries, but only in the sense that they can be party to a lawsuit. It's since the late 19th century that there have been bizarre Supreme Court decisions that give "artificial persons" rights, as though they were real people. That's way beyond what "artificial person" meant before, and certainly was not the intent of the authors of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Jefferson unabashedly spoke of corporations as things that should be "strangled in the crib". Nobody argued to the contrary.
I assume there's a lot more to it that "corporations can't run farms" since that would be unconstitutional.
Again you make the assertion that it would be unconstitutional, without making any argument or providing any evidence. Please explain.
You can reduce the inductor and capacitor sizes a lot by increasing the switching frequency.
But you can do that w/ an external regulator too. Apparently the secret is on-chip inductors. Now that's impressive. I'm surprised that some of the "analog" companies making switchers didn't come up with that first. I know Intel has good fab tech, but this seems more like the sort of funky thing analog guys would come up with first.
http://www.psma.com/sites/default/files/uploads/tech-forums-nanotechnology/resources/400a-fully-integrated-silicon-voltage-regulator.pdf
http://www.psma.com/sites/default/files/uploads/tech-forums-nanotechnology/resources/400a-fully-integrated-silicon-voltage-regulator.pdf
inductors and all
Now that's impressive, and I suspect the real secret to this. Not to say the semi design is trivial, but without the on-chip inductors you wouldn't have much. They weren't clear about it, but perhaps it means getting rid of the big filter caps, and relying on smaller caps for each regulator. It also explains the fast response time with a bunch of smaller regulators.
even coming from 12V
Way too high of an voltage for these sorts of semi processes. I think it starts at 2.4V.
Perhaps it's vastly more efficient than a traditional voltage regulator? It is, you know, silicon fabbed by Intel. The undisputed leader in chip fabrication technology. (Seriously. They're conservatively at least 2 generations ahead of everyone else)
Maybe one generation ahead, but that's in digital chips. While things like switching regulators can be built on digital processes (it's been done before) it's generally not the optimal process. Maybe they've come up with some clever ways to build better switchers on a digital process than previously, but it's hard to believe it's better than a process designed for stuff like this.
Being 1/50th the size it will be welcome on mobile devices.
It's not clear how they measure "1/50th the size". I could be wrong but it sounds like marketing hype. With a switching regulator the inductors and capacitors generally take up much more real estate than the chip. If they have some magic way to reduce the inductor and capacitor sizes it isn't mentioned in the article (and that would be a much bigger deal than just putting the regulator on the die).
You could legitimately get rid of limited liability for corporate shareholders.
So who would bother to incorporate? I'll be the first to say that it's a bad idea because it would destroy a modern economy. Just don't forget that it's an artificial incentive meant to spur economic activity, and anything but a traditional property right or "freedom".
You cannot legitimately restrict the rights of the people on the basis of their having organized themselves.
The Constitution says that people have the right to assemble peacefully. It says nothing about what sorts of economic arrangements amongst them must be permitted.
As for your Nebraska example, I don't know anything about such laws.
It's not just Nebraska - whole bunch of states have it.
If they are as simple as you imply, corporation can't farm, then not only would it be a reprehensible and arbitrary restriction on liberty
Until the general laws of incorporation were passed in various states, we were deprived of what liberty exactly? The right to create a seriously non-traditional financial arrangement that's only permitted because the law specifically allows this expedient?
it would be pretty obviously in violation of the 5th abd 14th ammendments
Perhaps under the sort of torturous legal reasoning that laughs at original intent, sails right past the living constitution, and goes into whatever fantastic creations are necessary to arrive at the desired conclusions. Not that it hasn't been done before. Personally I'll believe in corporate personhood when I can shake a corporation's hand.
P.S. Better tell the courts about these Constitutional problems, because the anti-corporate farming laws have passed numerous challenges at both the state and federal level.
details are sparse at this time, but it appears they had a subpoena for the information. The subpoena was delivered last Friday, well after the data was collected. However, that is allowed under certain circumstances. That is, when knowledge of the subpoena would ruin the investigation. Parties of interest don't need to have knowledge of warrants and subpoenas acquired during an active investigation. How well would a phone tap work if the person being tapped was told? Same thing here.
I'll assume you're more familiar with these procedures than me. Nevertheless it seems like an absurdly broad subpoena. Why not just ask for the phone records of everyone in DC (or wherever the hell the AP is).
Everything you say about press hypocrisy is true. Nevertheless I'm glad they targeted the press, as it's probably the only thing that will get them to squawk about this.
Campaign contributions like this are legal in most of Europe, so chances are you're just ill-informed.
Ill-informed about what? Where did the OP mention Europe? Does the fact that it's legal in most of Europe mean that it should be legal in the US (or legal in those European countries for that matter)?
oh and while at it make it a federal law that displayed prices in shops would include the sales taxes. it's fucking ridiculous, if you want a straight up example of what's wrong with the USA today it's 99c stores that charge 1.13(or whatever) for an item - the customer can't dodge paying it at the counter, so just fucking display the actual price
Why is that a good idea? In Europe (at least some parts - not sure about all) prices are listed as inclusive of VAT, which means that the tax is "hidden". Sure you can calculate the 15% (or whatever it is in your country - much higher than any US sales tax) that's going to VAT, but it doesn't hit you in the same way as getting a receipt that says you paid $X in sales tax. Especially fun when you buy a car.
if you're going to have any sales tax, then the only good choice is to have it the same all over in the same customs zone
But the EC is one big customs zone, yet the VAT varies from country to country. Don't forget that in the US there are states with larger populations than many European countries (e.g. all the Nordic countries).
gerrymandering by the VRA represents guaranteed Dem votes
Somebody ought to tell the Republicans in Texas. They've got some of the most outrageous gerrymandering in the country. Austin split between four districts, all of which go way out into the country. Upside-down Chinese dragon shaped district?
It would be pretty starling if you weren't allowed to exercise these rights in concert, for example by assembling into a corporation and lobbying or contributing to a campaign.
It wouldn't be startling at all. The fact that corporations can exist is only due to laws that permit them to exist. It's also well established that it's perfectly reasonable to limit what corporations can do. For example, in Nebraska farms can't be corporately owned or run.
In the early days of the Republic corporations were severely restricted. They could only be created by a special act of the legislature, and the corporate charter had to be narrow and specific about what business the corporation could conduct. For example, corporations were sometimes created to build and run turnpikes (toll roads). They couldn't decide later that they also wanted to get into the river boat business. And the corporate charters required periodic renewal (typically 5-10 years). Nor was that an empty threat. Corporations that didn't operate in the public interest could and did have their charters revoked.
The general laws of incorporation, which permit the existence of modern corporations, which don't require approval of the legislature, may engage in any business and have unlimited lifetime, dates only to the mid-19th century. It's hardly an ancient property right. The general laws of incorporation were passed in order to make it easier to create the sort of capital intensive businesses that the industrial revolution spawned. The limited liability aspect (a blatant violation of ancient property rights) was added in order to attract large numbers of investors, most of which did not have sufficient shares to exert much control. Basically they changed property rights that had existed in the common law for centuries in order to facilitate modern businesses. By itself that was a good idea, but never forget that corporations are entirely artificial creations of the law, and so can be limited by the law as seen fit.
The guys in hollywood will just run the ads on their own without giving the money to the election campaign.
It's easy to ban contributions in kind. Saying that you can't do that is like saying that you can ban bribery with money, but not with gifts.
This! Well said.What amazes me is that more people don't understand the obvious real world points you're making.
I'm saying that coming to a site that focuses almost exclusively on computer technology and then complaining when topics relating to two of the biggest influences upon that technology arise is silly.
I do have an interest in computer technology, but I disagree that it's a topic "relating to two of the biggest influences upon that technology". It's merely a discussion about how one famous guy on TV seemed to feel about his former collaborator/rival. What next, a discussion about how Bill Gates feels about his wife and kids? It would have as much relevance to the technology.
Just your hatred of a dead man.
Where did I say I hated anyone?
The mere act of 'purchasing' does not mean you can do whatever you want, unless the purchase itself included the authorization.
In those old days, whose existence you doubt, buying something that contained patented technology automatically conferred the right to use the patented tech in the object that you bought. Anything else would be absurd. Here's our new patented waffle iron. License to use the patented part sold separately.
Of course in the good old days nobody sold items with patented tech where the item is inherently self-replicating. I'd argue that the fruits (ok, beans) of that patented technology logically belong to whoever made the purchase. If you want it to be otherwise, then why are you selling items with a built-in ability to self-replicate? Farmers have been selling seed for a very long time. It has always been understood, in fact so obvious as to not be questioned, that the buyer had the right to plant those seeds, and to use the seeds from those plants however he wished, including replanting.
This is a case of extending the government granted monopoly (aka patents) so that it overrides literally thousands of years of understood and accepted practice. Absent a specific law from congress that authorizes this, the courts are legislating from the bench.
If you don't care, then you are on the wrong site.
No, my comment was about "human interest" stories that involve famous people. It's like asking which presidential candidate you'd rather have a beer with. Who cares? I don't know either of these people personally. I also don't trust any description of what "they're really like" when it comes to people with carefully polished public images.