DeBeers is only where they are because they've had a lock on the supply, and imitations up to this point have been less than convincing. Now we have the real thing, man-made. Especially the vapor process. In fact, the vapor process produces even more perfect diamonds than Mother Nature. DeBeers *should* be scared, since the tech is now in North America and they can't do a damn thing to stop it.
The problem is that nobody other than DeBeers has a hint of the real free market price for diamonds. Given that extracting a resource is almost always cheaper than synthesizing it, DeBeers may still have the upper hand. Who is to say that they don't already posses better synthetic methods of production?
The author didn't talk to anyone in the know about this. DeBeers certainly wouldn't shoot themselves in the kneecap by advertising synthetic diamond methods capable of $3/carat. For a cartel as succesful as DeBeers, it would surprise me to no end to find out that they don't already have contingencies on the table.
Where will these two outfits be if DeBeers succesfully separates the markets for industrial diamonds and luxury diamonds and then proceeds to clobber them with their superior manufacturing methods?
Re:Do not think outside the box:
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 1
Correct. The only reason wafers are currently round is because silicon ingots grow this way. There is no reason for additional cost and wasted silicon in making them square. Should diamond wafers grow into some polygon, however, that would probably do just as well.
Any field with such profit potential would generate its own OEM's faster than a cloud burst.
I suppose there are activist types who think that the development of the third world is morally wrong--that they should be dirt poor forever.
the oldest industrialized nations didn't benefit from bootstrapping themselves to nations already industrialized. what's wrong with having third world nations industrialize at a slower pace with their own efforts? you believe that just because england underwent the effort and pain of industrialization first that every country thereafter is owed effortless, pain free industrialization?
why do the same people who want to eliminate state social policies always argue in favor of globalization in order to "help the world's poor"? i suppose greed has nothing to do with it.
the problem with civ since civ2 is that they decided, as is the fad nowadays, to go with a 3d interface. this has caused problems for tactics within the game because unit movement potential is harder to grasp (at least for me anyways).
this has created such a problem that i have hardly touched civ except of course for the original. unfortunately civ3 propagates this problem. to make the game playable again, a 2d interface should be optional for those with short attention spans for fluff.
My take on this topic is that the best games have already been done and,sadly, forgotten. What you have nowadays is fluffy take-offs of past games.
The game described has actually appeared in many versions of early SSI games (C64 era), my favorite of which was Overrun. Units were given orders and things like chain of command, fog of war, aging information, units outside of command, etc. had a big impact. Sometimes, you knew that your opponent lost a leader because his units would get stupid although not necessarily enough to lose a fight (depending on situation).
The other point i would like to make is that i thought this discussion was about RTS as in Real Time (ie. games like AoE, C&C, Dune, etc) as opposed to turn based (Civ, A&A, chess, etc), because there is a big difference. RTS tends to be a better format for tactical scenarios whereas turn-based is better suited for strategic ones. Yes, i am aware that some games blend the two (AoE immediately comes to mind), but this requires a weird treatment of time.
It is my opinion that turn-based games make for the best thinking games and that is why RTS games are relegated to this supposedly mindless role of "get there firstest with the mostest".
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that nobody other than DeBeers has a hint of the real free market price for diamonds. Given that extracting a resource is almost always cheaper than synthesizing it, DeBeers may still have the upper hand. Who is to say that they don't already posses better synthetic methods of production?
The author didn't talk to anyone in the know about this. DeBeers certainly wouldn't shoot themselves in the kneecap by advertising synthetic diamond methods capable of $3/carat. For a cartel as succesful as DeBeers, it would surprise me to no end to find out that they don't already have contingencies on the table.
Where will these two outfits be if DeBeers succesfully separates the markets for industrial diamonds and luxury diamonds and then proceeds to clobber them with their superior manufacturing methods?
Any field with such profit potential would generate its own OEM's faster than a cloud burst.
he probably pled guilty to only a subset of all charges against him.
the oldest industrialized nations didn't benefit from bootstrapping themselves to nations already industrialized. what's wrong with having third world nations industrialize at a slower pace with their own efforts? you believe that just because england underwent the effort and pain of industrialization first that every country thereafter is owed effortless, pain free industrialization?
why do the same people who want to eliminate state social policies always argue in favor of globalization in order to "help the world's poor"? i suppose greed has nothing to do with it.
this has created such a problem that i have hardly touched civ except of course for the original. unfortunately civ3 propagates this problem. to make the game playable again, a 2d interface should be optional for those with short attention spans for fluff.
My take on this topic is that the best games have already been done and,sadly, forgotten. What you have nowadays is fluffy take-offs of past games. The game described has actually appeared in many versions of early SSI games (C64 era), my favorite of which was Overrun. Units were given orders and things like chain of command, fog of war, aging information, units outside of command, etc. had a big impact. Sometimes, you knew that your opponent lost a leader because his units would get stupid although not necessarily enough to lose a fight (depending on situation). The other point i would like to make is that i thought this discussion was about RTS as in Real Time (ie. games like AoE, C&C, Dune, etc) as opposed to turn based (Civ, A&A, chess, etc), because there is a big difference. RTS tends to be a better format for tactical scenarios whereas turn-based is better suited for strategic ones. Yes, i am aware that some games blend the two (AoE immediately comes to mind), but this requires a weird treatment of time. It is my opinion that turn-based games make for the best thinking games and that is why RTS games are relegated to this supposedly mindless role of "get there firstest with the mostest".