Intel is going to have a few rocky years ahead of them. They rested on their laurels and didn't take the competition seriously. They also threw a lot of money at useless projects and tried to shoehorn x86 into every possible market rather than trying to build the best product for that market.
Except that every other processor they had went nowhere. The i860, the i960, the Itanic, the StrongArm... And even though they got rights to the PA-RISC and the DEC Alpha, they went nowhere w/ those.
Instead of trying to demonstrate the shortcomings of RISC, which they did when they started the Itanic project, had they taken, say, a RISC CPU that they had some rights to, such as PA-RISC, and built embedded versions of those, they would have done better.
They need a CEO that will put an end to the idiocy and refocus Intel, but no one wants to be the one that has to go out back and shoot Old Yeller. Hopefully they do find someone, because as much fun as it is to see Intel eat some humble pie, if they don't get their shit together AMD will eventually turn out the same and we'll just be back to a stagnant computer market.
But what should they refocus on? Intel is Intel due to the x86 processor: take that away, and there's almost no reason to buy Intel. Vendors who use ARM already have a variety of choices, and would have no reason to go for a more expensive Intel alternative.
To whom, exactly? Which other company is there that has either a living processor (not including ARM, which is too fragmented) or the type of manufacturing capacity that Intel has?
'Land Reclamation' is something on par for the course for Communists, which is what the ANC always was and still is. The area in question is irrelevant, and the 'reclamation' is also being done on people who legally bought the land after the abolition of apartheid, under Mandela's presidency. You are nothing but a tinpot racist, except that since it's hatred directed at Whites, it's okay for not just Leftists, but a good number of people on the Right as well
Not just that, I want a car that I can get into should the battery on my car remote die (like for instance, the good old fashioned keyed entry). Or being able to access my hood should the battery die (I can on my Subaru, but wouldn't be able to on a Tesla).
As for the tech, what I have on my 2014 Crosstrek is good enough: a built in navigation unit (okay, ability to connect to CarPlay/Android Auto would be nice), steering wheel controls of stations and volume, rear camera whenever I reverse, and that's about it! I don't need my car to drive itself
Had Tesla been a company just focused on making a better car, it would have been one thing. Sure, pack in all the tech you want - built in navigation, connection to CarPlay/Android Auto, rearview cameras, steering controls, et al. (OTOH, Tesla is the only car that commercial towing companies refuse to handle, since impossible to access the engine should the battery die. That's the moronic concept about basing all operations on batteries, rather than allowing for mechanically accessing, say, the hood.) But Tesla coming out w/ self driving cars - a solution looking for a problem, since most people enjoy driving their cars - is one more of those 'disruptive forces' that just threatens the livelihood of truckers - one of the biggest employers in the country, while having little to give for it.
Yeah, over time, it's fine to assume that ultimately, self driving cars and trucks and planes and ships will be the norm, and that 50-100 years from now, no one will drive. However, to try and force that change now, which is what Musk, as well as companies like Uber and Lyft would love to do, only has major negative societal implications in terms of accelerating the hollowing out of the US, w/o having anything else to show for it.
Except that the paraphrased quote was not a Gandhi quote, contrary to popular belief.
But I do agree that Tesla is overvalued, and also, that the public subsidy of that company should end. Also, their valuations are ridiculous, when they have constantly been in the red, in sharp contrast to, say, Ford. Also, the truckers are right about one thing. There are about 10 million truckers in the US. One day, all those jobs may well get automated, and we may just use self driving trucks. But to force that now, and driving 10 million people out of work, w/ the domino effects on their families, is something that the truckers are completely justified in protesting. I doubt that it's so much the electric charging vs the gasoline or hybrids, as opposed to the complete automation of their jobs. Musk is the one who deserves to be replaced by a droid.
Except that the world was up in arms against this, back in the 80s, when Apartheid was the law of the land. Now, the Blacks have their own Apartheid, but since the races in question are flipped, nobody cares. Also, all over the Muslim world, non Muslims are systematically discriminated against, even while everybody else in the world, be it US, Canada, Israel, India, China, et al are lectured on the evils of 'Islamophobia'.
The H1B/L1/ visas are just incentives for companies like TCS, Infosys, et al to retain employees who'd otherwise get major salary hikes just by hopping b/w companies. As long as they are simply in Bangalore/Pune/Gurgaon/Hyderabad doing projects, there is nothing binding them to the company or preventing them from giving a 2-week notice. But once they're on an H1B, they're pretty much captive by the company, unless the company they want to move to is willing to do an H1B visa transfer for them.
So yeah, the solution to this is to make the Indian employees on the project work from India itself, since Americans are so not needed b'cos they cost too much. After a project keeps falling on its face and costing more as a result of delays, they can then determine what is cheaper - offshoring, or onshoring to other US companies.
Basic business question before that: to what extent will 7nm be a cost reduction on whatever Intel had before it? Those $10B fabs would have to be factored in whatever cost calculations they make on the new nodes, which I'll wager would actually cost more than current nodes, and would only be profitable in an allocation market
Trump should assign Mueller to look into her links w/ both China and Iran, then Mueller will have his hands full and stop harassing Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and others.
I doubt that it is any more, given all the people who've fled the state, and the fact that it's main population is immigrants from Latin America. If California were to secede, I doubt that it would even be ahead of all Latin American countries.
That's not the point. The point is that more often than not, moving involves moving to a more expensive place, and that too for a temporary project. Or even if it was permanent, it's for the sake of becoming another cog in the wheel of the company based in that more expensive place, expensive due to its being a major operational hub
Since more things are getting automated, and more things can be done remotely using a phone or a computer, there's no reason why Billy Joe Blow sitting in Omaha, NE can't get a good job where he is w/o having to sell his house and relocate. That helps keep costs of employment lower for the employer, but still affordable for the employee - a win-win solution.
But if one has 2 numbers - one for work and one for home from the same carrier, dual SIM phones can be useful. Although one reason for having separate phone numbers is to have separate phones
Wouldn't the solution to this be to have Verizon as the physical SIM, and the GSM 2G carrier the eSIM?? Unless someone's trying to carry both Verizon and Sprint?
The Foxconn deal was a deal with the state of Wisconsin. Ryan is a member of the United States Congress. Though he represents the people of Wisconsin, he does not have a say in how the state operates.
Except that this plant happens to be located in Ryan's district
These are all non-government corporations making these decisions. If Gab is free to conduct their service how they wish without government intervention, so is PayPal and Stripe. Simple as that.
Except that these companies are promoting themselves as media, rather than publishing companies. Paypal is another medium of transmitting money. FaceBook, Twitter and Google all claim to be portals, rather than media companies. They compare themselves to the phone companies. In which case, they have no business shutting down anybody - be it White Supremacists, Black Supremacists, La Raza, ISIS, Planned Parenthood, Right to Life, Antifa, KKK, or anybody else!
The first amendment rights exist for everybody, until someone has committed a criminal act that puts him in jail, and costs him the right to vote, among other things. So none of these companies have any business subverting that. It's one thing for a private company to tell its employees what they can or can't say while employed. It's another thing for a private company to tell its customers what they can or can't say if they wish to keep getting serviced. B'cos if they are, then they are effectively allowed powers that the government could have had, but for that pesky constitution.
Sorry, but Paypal, Mastercard, Discover, Stripe, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, et al have no business telling anyone what they are or ain't allowed to say! If anyone was allowed that power, it might as well have been elected representatives, but even for them, the constitution doesn't allow that.
The argument in favor of TiVoization is that Tivo is not violating the original GNU 2 license by putting locked code on the flash devices of a set top box. Yeah, while GNU's 4 freedoms may call for the freedom to modify code on one's devices, the practical realities of TiVo recognize that if that company allowed customers to freely swap boot ROM, they could end up pilfering content, and make media companies blacklist TiVo boxes. RMS refused to see things from TiVo's POV, and like the good Trotskyist that he is, he decided to write a new version of the license that would prevent another TiVo from providing GPL 3 licensed software on a locked medium. Forcing such a company to choose b/w either GPL 3 or going along w/ media copyrights.
Sure they can!!! There have been very legitimate criticisms of all his jihads against all sorts of things - from 'Open Source' to non-GNU licenses. On this site, his stance on TiVo have been heavily criticized, as has been his demand that software should not have owners, and that programmers should do their coding on a voluntary basis, and seek to pay their bills some other way.
The criticism of his style - from his hygene to his habits - are just icing on the cake.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel is going to have a few rocky years ahead of them. They rested on their laurels and didn't take the competition seriously. They also threw a lot of money at useless projects and tried to shoehorn x86 into every possible market rather than trying to build the best product for that market.
Except that every other processor they had went nowhere. The i860, the i960, the Itanic, the StrongArm... And even though they got rights to the PA-RISC and the DEC Alpha, they went nowhere w/ those.
Instead of trying to demonstrate the shortcomings of RISC, which they did when they started the Itanic project, had they taken, say, a RISC CPU that they had some rights to, such as PA-RISC, and built embedded versions of those, they would have done better.
They need a CEO that will put an end to the idiocy and refocus Intel, but no one wants to be the one that has to go out back and shoot Old Yeller. Hopefully they do find someone, because as much fun as it is to see Intel eat some humble pie, if they don't get their shit together AMD will eventually turn out the same and we'll just be back to a stagnant computer market.
But what should they refocus on? Intel is Intel due to the x86 processor: take that away, and there's almost no reason to buy Intel. Vendors who use ARM already have a variety of choices, and would have no reason to go for a more expensive Intel alternative.
To whom, exactly? Which other company is there that has either a living processor (not including ARM, which is too fragmented) or the type of manufacturing capacity that Intel has?
Oh, I agree w/ that, which is precisely why I put 'Islamophobia' in quotes
'Land Reclamation' is something on par for the course for Communists, which is what the ANC always was and still is. The area in question is irrelevant, and the 'reclamation' is also being done on people who legally bought the land after the abolition of apartheid, under Mandela's presidency. You are nothing but a tinpot racist, except that since it's hatred directed at Whites, it's okay for not just Leftists, but a good number of people on the Right as well
Minix sounds like it would be a better option, w/ its reincarnation server and its microkernel which is designed to be fault tolerant
Not just that, I want a car that I can get into should the battery on my car remote die (like for instance, the good old fashioned keyed entry). Or being able to access my hood should the battery die (I can on my Subaru, but wouldn't be able to on a Tesla).
As for the tech, what I have on my 2014 Crosstrek is good enough: a built in navigation unit (okay, ability to connect to CarPlay/Android Auto would be nice), steering wheel controls of stations and volume, rear camera whenever I reverse, and that's about it! I don't need my car to drive itself
Had Tesla been a company just focused on making a better car, it would have been one thing. Sure, pack in all the tech you want - built in navigation, connection to CarPlay/Android Auto, rearview cameras, steering controls, et al. (OTOH, Tesla is the only car that commercial towing companies refuse to handle, since impossible to access the engine should the battery die. That's the moronic concept about basing all operations on batteries, rather than allowing for mechanically accessing, say, the hood.) But Tesla coming out w/ self driving cars - a solution looking for a problem, since most people enjoy driving their cars - is one more of those 'disruptive forces' that just threatens the livelihood of truckers - one of the biggest employers in the country, while having little to give for it.
Yeah, over time, it's fine to assume that ultimately, self driving cars and trucks and planes and ships will be the norm, and that 50-100 years from now, no one will drive. However, to try and force that change now, which is what Musk, as well as companies like Uber and Lyft would love to do, only has major negative societal implications in terms of accelerating the hollowing out of the US, w/o having anything else to show for it.
Except that the paraphrased quote was not a Gandhi quote, contrary to popular belief.
But I do agree that Tesla is overvalued, and also, that the public subsidy of that company should end. Also, their valuations are ridiculous, when they have constantly been in the red, in sharp contrast to, say, Ford. Also, the truckers are right about one thing. There are about 10 million truckers in the US. One day, all those jobs may well get automated, and we may just use self driving trucks. But to force that now, and driving 10 million people out of work, w/ the domino effects on their families, is something that the truckers are completely justified in protesting. I doubt that it's so much the electric charging vs the gasoline or hybrids, as opposed to the complete automation of their jobs. Musk is the one who deserves to be replaced by a droid.
Except that the world was up in arms against this, back in the 80s, when Apartheid was the law of the land. Now, the Blacks have their own Apartheid, but since the races in question are flipped, nobody cares. Also, all over the Muslim world, non Muslims are systematically discriminated against, even while everybody else in the world, be it US, Canada, Israel, India, China, et al are lectured on the evils of 'Islamophobia'.
The H1B/L1/ visas are just incentives for companies like TCS, Infosys, et al to retain employees who'd otherwise get major salary hikes just by hopping b/w companies. As long as they are simply in Bangalore/Pune/Gurgaon/Hyderabad doing projects, there is nothing binding them to the company or preventing them from giving a 2-week notice. But once they're on an H1B, they're pretty much captive by the company, unless the company they want to move to is willing to do an H1B visa transfer for them.
So yeah, the solution to this is to make the Indian employees on the project work from India itself, since Americans are so not needed b'cos they cost too much. After a project keeps falling on its face and costing more as a result of delays, they can then determine what is cheaper - offshoring, or onshoring to other US companies.
Basic business question before that: to what extent will 7nm be a cost reduction on whatever Intel had before it? Those $10B fabs would have to be factored in whatever cost calculations they make on the new nodes, which I'll wager would actually cost more than current nodes, and would only be profitable in an allocation market
Trump should assign Mueller to look into her links w/ both China and Iran, then Mueller will have his hands full and stop harassing Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and others.
I doubt that it is any more, given all the people who've fled the state, and the fact that it's main population is immigrants from Latin America. If California were to secede, I doubt that it would even be ahead of all Latin American countries.
.both US, Russia and China, the 3 world potencies,....
The term 'both' implies only 2 subjects: once you mention those, having more makes it a howler
That's not the point. The point is that more often than not, moving involves moving to a more expensive place, and that too for a temporary project. Or even if it was permanent, it's for the sake of becoming another cog in the wheel of the company based in that more expensive place, expensive due to its being a major operational hub
Since more things are getting automated, and more things can be done remotely using a phone or a computer, there's no reason why Billy Joe Blow sitting in Omaha, NE can't get a good job where he is w/o having to sell his house and relocate. That helps keep costs of employment lower for the employer, but still affordable for the employee - a win-win solution.
But if one has 2 numbers - one for work and one for home from the same carrier, dual SIM phones can be useful. Although one reason for having separate phone numbers is to have separate phones
Wouldn't the solution to this be to have Verizon as the physical SIM, and the GSM 2G carrier the eSIM?? Unless someone's trying to carry both Verizon and Sprint?
The Foxconn deal was a deal with the state of Wisconsin. Ryan is a member of the United States Congress. Though he represents the people of Wisconsin, he does not have a say in how the state operates.
Except that this plant happens to be located in Ryan's district
By then, Foxcon should be making the iPhones in Wisconsin, which will make the tariffs moot!
These are all non-government corporations making these decisions. If Gab is free to conduct their service how they wish without government intervention, so is PayPal and Stripe. Simple as that.
Except that these companies are promoting themselves as media, rather than publishing companies. Paypal is another medium of transmitting money. FaceBook, Twitter and Google all claim to be portals, rather than media companies. They compare themselves to the phone companies. In which case, they have no business shutting down anybody - be it White Supremacists, Black Supremacists, La Raza, ISIS, Planned Parenthood, Right to Life, Antifa, KKK, or anybody else!
The first amendment rights exist for everybody, until someone has committed a criminal act that puts him in jail, and costs him the right to vote, among other things. So none of these companies have any business subverting that. It's one thing for a private company to tell its employees what they can or can't say while employed. It's another thing for a private company to tell its customers what they can or can't say if they wish to keep getting serviced. B'cos if they are, then they are effectively allowed powers that the government could have had, but for that pesky constitution.
Sorry, but Paypal, Mastercard, Discover, Stripe, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, et al have no business telling anyone what they are or ain't allowed to say! If anyone was allowed that power, it might as well have been elected representatives, but even for them, the constitution doesn't allow that.
How about the great Oracle, since Oracle Linux is nothing more than RHEL w/ Oracle's people responsible for both OS and DB?
FreeBSD finally seems to have stabilized TrueOS so that it now works smoothly on my laptop.
The argument in favor of TiVoization is that Tivo is not violating the original GNU 2 license by putting locked code on the flash devices of a set top box. Yeah, while GNU's 4 freedoms may call for the freedom to modify code on one's devices, the practical realities of TiVo recognize that if that company allowed customers to freely swap boot ROM, they could end up pilfering content, and make media companies blacklist TiVo boxes. RMS refused to see things from TiVo's POV, and like the good Trotskyist that he is, he decided to write a new version of the license that would prevent another TiVo from providing GPL 3 licensed software on a locked medium. Forcing such a company to choose b/w either GPL 3 or going along w/ media copyrights.
Just wondering - is that original iceberg still there at its location, or has it melted due to global warming?
Sure they can!!! There have been very legitimate criticisms of all his jihads against all sorts of things - from 'Open Source' to non-GNU licenses. On this site, his stance on TiVo have been heavily criticized, as has been his demand that software should not have owners, and that programmers should do their coding on a voluntary basis, and seek to pay their bills some other way.
The criticism of his style - from his hygene to his habits - are just icing on the cake.