There are trade restrictions on selling advanced lithography equipment to China that's why they only have 65nm production lines in there. Granted, Intel could be manufacturing more chips elsewhere, just not in China.
That's bullshit. AMD couldn't afford to build a new fab because Hector Ruiz blew up AMD's cash reserves buying ATI lock stock and barrel over the stock market price just before the 2008 market crash. In fact this particular little deal smelled so bad a lot of people went to court and Hector was forced to quit his post.
If Intel wants to bend consumers over, they are already in a position to do so. However, they seem to be sticking to their roadmap despite the fact that AMD has been falling farther and farther behind.
Have you looked at Intel CPU prices lately? It hasn't been this bad since the Pentium II times. I would also point out that there are no Ivy Bridge server processors available, nor is their 6 core processor based on Ivy Bridge despite the first Ivy Bridge processors coming out a long time ago.
Well Qualcomm designs their own chips. They don't just license a CPU core. In that regard they do something similar to AMD which licenses the X86 architecture from Intel but design their own chips. It used to be that AMD had their own manufacturing capabilities but this is no longer true. We can thank Hector Ruiz for that.
Israel doesn't border Iran. In fact there are even questions whether Israel can conduct an aerial bombardment missions over Iranian nuclear facilities due to airplane range issues. However Pakistan does border Iran and has nuclear weapons.
NetBSD used to be known as an easily portable UNIX like operating system. Quite often whenever you heard of a new hardware architecture it was usually the first operating system ported to it. For example when X86-64 came out it was the first. AFAIK their device drivers are written in a way to be easier to port across machine architectures so that eases porting efforts. I heard the FreeBSD folks were integrating something similar to the NetBSD driver model but that is about it.
Russia has denied exporting a lot of military technology to Iran including improved air defense missiles. China needs the cheap oil so they are still willing to do trade with Iran.
Tesla sells cars with 300 miles of range. If that isn't enough what is? I doubt it can't pull things given that electric motors usually have a lot of torque. The only issue IMO is that these cars are still too expensive. The price of batteries needs to go down further.
There are better development tools for NVIDIA cards and their latest card is better performing than what AMD can currently offer. This was not true in the previous generation however.
Plainly bollocks considering Bin Laden himself was part of these "mujahedeen" back then when he was back in Pakistan helping to run training camps to fight the Soviets. The "mujahedeen" included all sorts of tribal warlords including what would become the Taliban funded by Pakistan's secret services.
Bollocks. There are a lot more non-US based pharma companies than that. Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche and AstraZeneca are examples but only two of those are from the UK. These all have large R&D budgets. I keep hearing this crap that US companies do more R&D but it isn't quite as simple as you think it is. Quite often when I did in deeper some drug allegedly invented by an US pharmaceutical company was originally discovered by state funded European university researchers and the US company basically spent money to develop a method to produce it in quantity and to conduct clinical trials. While this is important work there is more R&D work being done outside the US than you seem to realize.
Government funding can help spur innovations. Some times it works, other times it doesn't. Not all "green" technology investments went wrong in my perspective. Tesla managed to build electric cars with much greater range and performance than previous cars to the point where these cars can start competing with internal combustion engine vehicles. Much of the installed wind power capacity generates a useful resource at a reasonably low price per kWh in otherwise depressed areas.
Much of the issue however is that unlike in the past the government no longer is funding large high risk projects to provide capabilities itself needs but instead they are funding things they think citizens will need in their daily lives. Nuclear research, the Internet worked a lot better because since the government is the actual client they can actually evaluate the worth of a technology better than they would otherwise. DARPA does well to seek 3rd party ideas but they should try to focus on defense related R&D even if it has non-military applications as well.
Thorium reactors are mostly a concern for countries like India which have low Uranium reserves and want to be self-sufficient energetically. If you aren't concerned about being self-sufficient it is a lot cheaper to buy Uranium from Australia or Canada or whatever.
Private corporations don't have those problems nearly to the same degree you said. There is less of a pressure on quarterly earnings since the owners of the corporation have their own skin in the game and less external pressures hence they often choose strategies to maximize long term corporate viability rather than focusing on short term earnings. Other examples are public corporations largely still controlled by their founders like Google.
Slashdot Mirror
There are trade restrictions on selling advanced lithography equipment to China that's why they only have 65nm production lines in there. Granted, Intel could be manufacturing more chips elsewhere, just not in China.
That's bullshit. AMD couldn't afford to build a new fab because Hector Ruiz blew up AMD's cash reserves buying ATI lock stock and barrel over the stock market price just before the 2008 market crash. In fact this particular little deal smelled so bad a lot of people went to court and Hector was forced to quit his post.
If Intel wants to bend consumers over, they are already in a position to do so. However, they seem to be sticking to their roadmap despite the fact that AMD has been falling farther and farther behind.
Have you looked at Intel CPU prices lately? It hasn't been this bad since the Pentium II times. I would also point out that there are no Ivy Bridge server processors available, nor is their 6 core processor based on Ivy Bridge despite the first Ivy Bridge processors coming out a long time ago.
Remember the Cyrix MediaGX? What the ARM vendors are doing isn't new either.
Well Qualcomm designs their own chips. They don't just license a CPU core. In that regard they do something similar to AMD which licenses the X86 architecture from Intel but design their own chips. It used to be that AMD had their own manufacturing capabilities but this is no longer true. We can thank Hector Ruiz for that.
Israel doesn't border Iran. In fact there are even questions whether Israel can conduct an aerial bombardment missions over Iranian nuclear facilities due to airplane range issues. However Pakistan does border Iran and has nuclear weapons.
NetBSD used to be known as an easily portable UNIX like operating system. Quite often whenever you heard of a new hardware architecture it was usually the first operating system ported to it. For example when X86-64 came out it was the first. AFAIK their device drivers are written in a way to be easier to port across machine architectures so that eases porting efforts. I heard the FreeBSD folks were integrating something similar to the NetBSD driver model but that is about it.
Cuba doesn't have oil.
Iran doesn't need to buy uranium from anyone. They have large reserves of it. What they need is a way to refine and separate it.
Russia has been at war with the Turks for most of its history. They are certainly not interested to see Turkey extend its influence over Syria.
Russia has denied exporting a lot of military technology to Iran including improved air defense missiles. China needs the cheap oil so they are still willing to do trade with Iran.
I think MS is doing great with its pricing model. This way Android can dominate the tablet market like its meant to.
Even in Denver the coal power plant isn't in the middle of the city where most of the air quality problems are an issue.
Tesla sells cars with 300 miles of range. If that isn't enough what is? I doubt it can't pull things given that electric motors usually have a lot of torque. The only issue IMO is that these cars are still too expensive. The price of batteries needs to go down further.
Intel didn't purchase anything. They have had an Israeli design team since back when the 8087 FPU was designed. Yes that long.
There are better development tools for NVIDIA cards and their latest card is better performing than what AMD can currently offer. This was not true in the previous generation however.
This used to be true but in the age of too big to fail it isn't anymore.
FWIW the first bank bailout was done back when W was President.
Iran-Contra? Oliver North? Rings a bell?
Plainly bollocks considering Bin Laden himself was part of these "mujahedeen" back then when he was back in Pakistan helping to run training camps to fight the Soviets. The "mujahedeen" included all sorts of tribal warlords including what would become the Taliban funded by Pakistan's secret services.
Bollocks. There are a lot more non-US based pharma companies than that. Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche and AstraZeneca are examples but only two of those are from the UK. These all have large R&D budgets. I keep hearing this crap that US companies do more R&D but it isn't quite as simple as you think it is. Quite often when I did in deeper some drug allegedly invented by an US pharmaceutical company was originally discovered by state funded European university researchers and the US company basically spent money to develop a method to produce it in quantity and to conduct clinical trials. While this is important work there is more R&D work being done outside the US than you seem to realize.
Government funding can help spur innovations. Some times it works, other times it doesn't. Not all "green" technology investments went wrong in my perspective. Tesla managed to build electric cars with much greater range and performance than previous cars to the point where these cars can start competing with internal combustion engine vehicles. Much of the installed wind power capacity generates a useful resource at a reasonably low price per kWh in otherwise depressed areas.
Much of the issue however is that unlike in the past the government no longer is funding large high risk projects to provide capabilities itself needs but instead they are funding things they think citizens will need in their daily lives. Nuclear research, the Internet worked a lot better because since the government is the actual client they can actually evaluate the worth of a technology better than they would otherwise. DARPA does well to seek 3rd party ideas but they should try to focus on defense related R&D even if it has non-military applications as well.
Thorium reactors are mostly a concern for countries like India which have low Uranium reserves and want to be self-sufficient energetically. If you aren't concerned about being self-sufficient it is a lot cheaper to buy Uranium from Australia or Canada or whatever.
Private corporations don't have those problems nearly to the same degree you said. There is less of a pressure on quarterly earnings since the owners of the corporation have their own skin in the game and less external pressures hence they often choose strategies to maximize long term corporate viability rather than focusing on short term earnings. Other examples are public corporations largely still controlled by their founders like Google.
That would be in the US. Here in Europe we have a long tradition of punishing poor performing companies or workers.