The paternalistic racism you refer to has been replaced with the failed "great society" - handouts
Right - only black people get food stamps. While you're considering that, you might want to catch up on the news for the last 17 years. Pay particular attention to anything about the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Oh, and the Yankees won the Series that year.
Alternatively we could make iPhones and iPads in the US. Might cost 10% more. Either consumers will have to pay more than Apple's already inflated prices, or Apple's cash hoard might shrink to a measly $100B.
Less and less so as the US slides toward irrelevance.
Gosh, first time I heard that one. BTW, China can't be #1 because Japan took over the world economically in the 80's. Wake me when the US is actually irrelevant.
Today they're able to rip off western manufacturers who've been railroaded into setting up shop in "joint ventures"
Railroaded? You think that, for example, those poor naive and powerless folks at GE were railroaded into joint gas turbine (and following the logical progression) jet engine ventures with China? GE execs saw dollar signs in their eyes, at least for the next quarter (as far ahead as they ever think).
I have more than a few qualms about the Chinese government (like these absurd and bellicose territorial claims), but when it comes to economic issues between the US and China I don't blame them - we're busy screwing ourselves.
Amusingly, in a dispute between US fisherman and the Canadian government, lawyers once successfully argued that scallops are not "sedentary species"
Most species of scallops are not sedentary - they swim around. Just because they're bivalve mollusks doesn't mean they live the same way as clams and oysters.
USA loves this "continental shelf" extension past the old 200 mile limit for claiming petroleum resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Those bullying Yanks - imagine trying to use a provision in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, just like other countries do.
Ok, throw in some factors that account for the area of the country, and proximity to other countries. Some 10 sq. mi. island with ten people and a thousand miles from anything else it wants to claim a 200 mi. EEZ? Fine. China wants to claim the East China Sea? Forget it. The US may be no paragon of anti-imperialism, but how would people react if we tried to claim the Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico that way?
The Falkland Islands were no strategic prize either (though they had been when ships needed coaling stations). They're an idiotic traditional cause célèbre in Argentina. They're of no great value to anyone, and at 300 miles off the Argentine coast, are pretty far out of their territorial waters. The reason that the UK had to defend those islands is that their subjects live there. You don't let your own people stay the victims of an invasion.
Nonsense. What struck people at the time about WWI is that, rather than having to kill people onesy-twosey, it could now be done on an industrial scale. Twenty some years later, we developed a weapon that could destroy a modest size city with a single bomb. Later we developed the "super" (as Teller originally called it) and ICBM's, so we could wipe out a substantial portion of the human race within an hour (thus saving on overtime costs if we decided to play global thermonuclear war). Technology marches on.
Long term, Intel must become a foundry because it will lose its process generation edge
Maybe. It sure looks like they're running into some pretty serious problems. EUV doesn't seem to be working out. Someday Moore's law has to end, but I've heard it predicted so many times that I take a wait and see attitude.
using that same logic, all other cell phone manufacturers are even worse
I mentioned Apple in particular only because somebody pointed out their cash hoard is bigger than Intel's market cap.
there is nothing wrong with contracting out design when a company requires a unique part
Of course not - where did so much as suggest there was? Though in many cases they're looking for a customization of otherwise OTS stuff, which is stretching the implication of the word "unique".
Apple performs more in-house design then any other cell phone manufacturer.
My point was that that's not saying much.
Only Samsung comes close - but their displays are developed a separate division and sold to everyone so it really doesn't count.
How does that not count? It's Samsung. They design and build OLED displays. Actually having serious tech means they make more money selling the stuff on the open market rather than keeping it as an "exclusive" just for their cell phones.
Combining the different hardware and software to produce an efficient final product is typically the hardest part - assuming it's done right.
No it's not. I speak from experience, as I've worked both sides of the street.
And this is precisely why the market for premium cell phones exists. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
Lots of companies do it. The cell/smart phone business is like the fashion business - up one year with the hot product and going down the toilet the next. Remember when Nokia was king of the hill? How about Blackberry? The list goes on.
Maybe that's why Qualcomm got out of the cell phone business and now does the RF/modem chipsets and software. It has a much greater barrier to entry because it's more difficult, requires greater expertise, and takes years of refinement of a product line to get it to the point where it's truly competitive. AFAIK their only real competition is Infineon, and they had a very hard time getting there. Once established in that business though, it's more stable because of the barriers to entry, and the fact that all cell phone manufacturers need you product.
Based on sales - less then iPhones.
Of course - that was my point. I wonder what the parking garage business is worth. You know how much the garages in Manhattan alone rake in?
Don't forget the Intel is not the only designer and manufacturer of CPUs.
No, but for many years they've consistently had the most bleeding edge digital fab processes. That's a wee bit more difficult than insisting that rectangles should have rounded corners, though apparently not as profitable.
Apple could buy Intel, at least in theory. They have cash reserves of $147 Billion - Intel's market cap is only $118 Billion.
That's a sad commentary on the state of the "tech" world. Designing cell phones and the like is not trivial, but it's much less sophisticated than designing and building the components that almost all cell phone manufacturers buy. I believe Apple designs some of their digital chips, but are they redesigning every detail of the ARM for higher performance like Qualcomm does w/ Snapdragon? By far and away the most sophisticated and difficult to design chips in a cell phone (smart or dumb) are the mixed-signal/RF chips that handle the actual wireless implementation, from RF down to baseband processing. That usually also includes any necessary DSP and wireless protocol software, which is not simple. After that the wireless stuff is mostly just a black box that your "main" CPU talks to via a simple interface. Does Apple do any of that work? I think they just buy from Qualcomm or Infineon like everybody else. Have they even switched to OLED's yet? That's a sophisticated tech - that Apple will buy essentially off-the-shelf. In other words, an iPhone is basically just a systems integration job, with the sophisticated core tech bought from elsewhere.
By contrast Intel is still one of the leading CPU design companies in the world, and almost always has the most bleeding edge fabs. What's that worth?
A joke you'll get only if you've seen the Curious George movie: the real money is in parking garages.
Moreover, in the future hydrogen can be produced using electricity and water. It's ideal for power sources like solar and wind, since the hydrogen can be produced only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and stored in a tank.
please consider that most of the people still living on the planet under a tribal/primitive lifestyle are pretty calm and get along pretty well.
... if you think that's even remotely true you've obviously never studied Anthropology to any degree
You're both more interested in your biases and tales of morality (or lack thereof) than in science. That is, of course, unless I'm unaware of some precise scientific definitions for "pretty calm" and "pretty well".
Even assuming that Wikipedia and the paper it references by Witherspoon, et al, are the last word, what's the significance of it? "Measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci" is a crude statistical approach that makes no attempt to take into account the significance of the polymorphisms. In other words it measures genotypic rather than phenotypic differences. Then, even to the crude and very poorly understood extent that genotypic variation corresponds to phenotypic variation, what is the significance of those phenotypic variations? Black people generally have darker skin than white people? People of Northern European ancestry are more likely to have blonde hair or blue eyes than those of East Asian ancestry? Well, duh.
Moreover, they were only looking for genotypic variation within and between groups that were long pre-defined, and defined without consideration of anything other than appearance. In other words, what are usually called races. How many races are there? Africans and Australian aborigines both have dark skin, yet, IIRC (sorry can't find the link now) the genotypic differences between Africans and Australians is greater than that between Africans and Europeans. There is also more genotypic variation amongst Africans than there is amongst white people (basically Europeans + West/Central Asians).
If your primary interest was in genotypic variation within and between groups, rather than support or debunking for some social notions, then you'd start by finding those groups that have the greatest genotypic similarity, rather than some arbitrarily pre-defined groups. For example, you might find that the genotypic similarity amongst East African and Middle Eastern people is greater than the similarity between East African and West African people.
Europeans and Neanderthals, Africans and homo erectus... demonstrates a principle that has been true since time immemorial, and all over the world. The modern situational implication is this: after 2AM there is no such thing as an ugly woman in a bar.
Slashdot Mirror
The paternalistic racism you refer to has been replaced with the failed "great society" - handouts
Right - only black people get food stamps. While you're considering that, you might want to catch up on the news for the last 17 years. Pay particular attention to anything about the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Oh, and the Yankees won the Series that year.
Japan is constitutionally prohibited from having more than a token, purely-defensive military
First, Japan's "self defense forces" are only a token force by US standards. By regional standards they're highly regarded.
Second, Japan can amend its constitution, if it even needs to:
On May 30th, 2013, The ruling Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDPJ) Council of National Defense approved the draft of the full-scale rearmament of the country. This would also cause the renaming of the Japan Self-Defense Forces into that of a full army of national defense.
Alternatively we could make iPhones and iPads in the US. Might cost 10% more. Either consumers will have to pay more than Apple's already inflated prices, or Apple's cash hoard might shrink to a measly $100B.
Less and less so as the US slides toward irrelevance.
Gosh, first time I heard that one. BTW, China can't be #1 because Japan took over the world economically in the 80's. Wake me when the US is actually irrelevant.
We're all going to die eventually - why wait?
Sounds like you've been reading The Bear and the Dragon. Good read, but for better or worse, the Pax Atomica stops it from happening.
Today they're able to rip off western manufacturers who've been railroaded into setting up shop in "joint ventures"
Railroaded? You think that, for example, those poor naive and powerless folks at GE were railroaded into joint gas turbine (and following the logical progression) jet engine ventures with China? GE execs saw dollar signs in their eyes, at least for the next quarter (as far ahead as they ever think).
I have more than a few qualms about the Chinese government (like these absurd and bellicose territorial claims), but when it comes to economic issues between the US and China I don't blame them - we're busy screwing ourselves.
That's how Sun Tzu says to do things.
That works to our advantage. Since Sun Tzu was Chinese, the Chinese probably don't take him seriously. No man is a prophet in his own home.
Amusingly, in a dispute between US fisherman and the Canadian government, lawyers once successfully argued that scallops are not "sedentary species"
Most species of scallops are not sedentary - they swim around. Just because they're bivalve mollusks doesn't mean they live the same way as clams and oysters.
USA loves this "continental shelf" extension past the old 200 mile limit for claiming petroleum resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Those bullying Yanks - imagine trying to use a provision in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, just like other countries do.
Ok, throw in some factors that account for the area of the country, and proximity to other countries. Some 10 sq. mi. island with ten people and a thousand miles from anything else it wants to claim a 200 mi. EEZ? Fine. China wants to claim the East China Sea? Forget it. The US may be no paragon of anti-imperialism, but how would people react if we tried to claim the Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico that way?
These ain't no Falkland Islands.
True - they have fewer sheep.
The Falkland Islands were no strategic prize either (though they had been when ships needed coaling stations). They're an idiotic traditional cause célèbre in Argentina. They're of no great value to anyone, and at 300 miles off the Argentine coast, are pretty far out of their territorial waters. The reason that the UK had to defend those islands is that their subjects live there. You don't let your own people stay the victims of an invasion.
War never changes.
Nonsense. What struck people at the time about WWI is that, rather than having to kill people onesy-twosey, it could now be done on an industrial scale. Twenty some years later, we developed a weapon that could destroy a modest size city with a single bomb. Later we developed the "super" (as Teller originally called it) and ICBM's, so we could wipe out a substantial portion of the human race within an hour (thus saving on overtime costs if we decided to play global thermonuclear war). Technology marches on.
Wow - quite a bargain then. Seriously.
Long term, Intel must become a foundry because it will lose its process generation edge
Maybe. It sure looks like they're running into some pretty serious problems. EUV doesn't seem to be working out. Someday Moore's law has to end, but I've heard it predicted so many times that I take a wait and see attitude.
Intel's bleeding edge graphene? Who knows.
Good to know there's some actual tech being done at Apple.
using that same logic, all other cell phone manufacturers are even worse
I mentioned Apple in particular only because somebody pointed out their cash hoard is bigger than Intel's market cap.
there is nothing wrong with contracting out design when a company requires a unique part
Of course not - where did so much as suggest there was? Though in many cases they're looking for a customization of otherwise OTS stuff, which is stretching the implication of the word "unique".
Apple performs more in-house design then any other cell phone manufacturer.
My point was that that's not saying much.
Only Samsung comes close - but their displays are developed a separate division and sold to everyone so it really doesn't count.
How does that not count? It's Samsung. They design and build OLED displays. Actually having serious tech means they make more money selling the stuff on the open market rather than keeping it as an "exclusive" just for their cell phones.
Combining the different hardware and software to produce an efficient final product is typically the hardest part - assuming it's done right.
No it's not. I speak from experience, as I've worked both sides of the street.
And this is precisely why the market for premium cell phones exists. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
Lots of companies do it. The cell/smart phone business is like the fashion business - up one year with the hot product and going down the toilet the next. Remember when Nokia was king of the hill? How about Blackberry? The list goes on.
Maybe that's why Qualcomm got out of the cell phone business and now does the RF/modem chipsets and software. It has a much greater barrier to entry because it's more difficult, requires greater expertise, and takes years of refinement of a product line to get it to the point where it's truly competitive. AFAIK their only real competition is Infineon, and they had a very hard time getting there. Once established in that business though, it's more stable because of the barriers to entry, and the fact that all cell phone manufacturers need you product.
Based on sales - less then iPhones.
Of course - that was my point. I wonder what the parking garage business is worth. You know how much the garages in Manhattan alone rake in?
Don't forget the Intel is not the only designer and manufacturer of CPUs.
No, but for many years they've consistently had the most bleeding edge digital fab processes. That's a wee bit more difficult than insisting that rectangles should have rounded corners, though apparently not as profitable.
Apple could buy Intel, at least in theory. They have cash reserves of $147 Billion - Intel's market cap is only $118 Billion.
That's a sad commentary on the state of the "tech" world. Designing cell phones and the like is not trivial, but it's much less sophisticated than designing and building the components that almost all cell phone manufacturers buy. I believe Apple designs some of their digital chips, but are they redesigning every detail of the ARM for higher performance like Qualcomm does w/ Snapdragon? By far and away the most sophisticated and difficult to design chips in a cell phone (smart or dumb) are the mixed-signal/RF chips that handle the actual wireless implementation, from RF down to baseband processing. That usually also includes any necessary DSP and wireless protocol software, which is not simple. After that the wireless stuff is mostly just a black box that your "main" CPU talks to via a simple interface. Does Apple do any of that work? I think they just buy from Qualcomm or Infineon like everybody else. Have they even switched to OLED's yet? That's a sophisticated tech - that Apple will buy essentially off-the-shelf. In other words, an iPhone is basically just a systems integration job, with the sophisticated core tech bought from elsewhere.
By contrast Intel is still one of the leading CPU design companies in the world, and almost always has the most bleeding edge fabs. What's that worth?
A joke you'll get only if you've seen the Curious George movie: the real money is in parking garages.
green technology with a system that is designed to make conglomerates more filthy rich rather than solve anything
Please explain how that's true of hydrogen.
we get it from Natural Gas which would be EASIER to make part of the fuel system given current infrastructure
But it's less efficient. Burning natural gas in ICV's means the inefficiency of ICV's is part of the equation. Fuel cells are much more efficient:
Well-to-wheels studies, which compare various fuel pathways and vehicle types, show that hydrogen produced from natural gas and used in a fuel cell vehicle is twice as efficient and 55% cleaner than gasoline through a conventional vehicles.
Moreover, in the future hydrogen can be produced using electricity and water. It's ideal for power sources like solar and wind, since the hydrogen can be produced only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and stored in a tank.
Psychopaths are treated like they have a disease, but in truth they're the next step of evolution.
Not if we non-psychopaths kill them first.
please consider that most of the people still living on the planet under a tribal/primitive lifestyle are pretty calm and get along pretty well.
... if you think that's even remotely true you've obviously never studied Anthropology to any degree
You're both more interested in your biases and tales of morality (or lack thereof) than in science. That is, of course, unless I'm unaware of some precise scientific definitions for "pretty calm" and "pretty well".
It does if you're a reptile.
But from which group did we inherit more of our characteristics?
Even assuming that Wikipedia and the paper it references by Witherspoon, et al, are the last word, what's the significance of it? "Measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci" is a crude statistical approach that makes no attempt to take into account the significance of the polymorphisms. In other words it measures genotypic rather than phenotypic differences. Then, even to the crude and very poorly understood extent that genotypic variation corresponds to phenotypic variation, what is the significance of those phenotypic variations? Black people generally have darker skin than white people? People of Northern European ancestry are more likely to have blonde hair or blue eyes than those of East Asian ancestry? Well, duh.
Moreover, they were only looking for genotypic variation within and between groups that were long pre-defined, and defined without consideration of anything other than appearance. In other words, what are usually called races. How many races are there? Africans and Australian aborigines both have dark skin, yet, IIRC (sorry can't find the link now) the genotypic differences between Africans and Australians is greater than that between Africans and Europeans. There is also more genotypic variation amongst Africans than there is amongst white people (basically Europeans + West/Central Asians).
If your primary interest was in genotypic variation within and between groups, rather than support or debunking for some social notions, then you'd start by finding those groups that have the greatest genotypic similarity, rather than some arbitrarily pre-defined groups. For example, you might find that the genotypic similarity amongst East African and Middle Eastern people is greater than the similarity between East African and West African people.
Europeans and Neanderthals, Africans and homo erectus ... demonstrates a principle that has been true since time immemorial, and all over the world. The modern situational implication is this: after 2AM there is no such thing as an ugly woman in a bar.
it's been common knowledge for a few years now
So making 10 attempts to get the needle into a vein just satisfies your sadistic tendencies? :)