They can but it will be a lot more expensive and you can bet getting the tens or hundreds of thousands of chips they need for a supercomputer WILL be noticeable.
It's not just that. The Chinese have been working on miniaturization of their nuclear warheads so can they make them road mobile and submarine launched. They also are working on stealth aircraft, advanced radar, and the like. So you can bet they could use the processing power.
It's not like China doesn't have FABs and engineers that could make a similar CPU. What Intel fears the most is this will kickstart some national pride that's going to end with gov't funded R&D to make high end CPUs and GPUs.
You are wrong. The Chinese do not have the FABs. In fact no one else but Intel has FABs at that node. Everyone else is like 2 years behind and the Chinese FABs are like 6 years behind. There are export restrictions on advanced lithography equipment and the only litho manufacturers are in the US, Europe and Japan. Namely Ultratech, ASML, Canon and Nikon.
Their chip design is over a decade behind the west. Just look at Longsoon or the licensed ARM processors companies like Mediatek manufacture.
They're morons then. The license of a compiler has nothing to do with the license of the generated code. Just to prevent this particular stupidity Stallman even added a specific GCC exemption at one point but this is widely understood to be implicit by common law anyway.
I've seen stupidity in corporations regarding open source or free software several times and the license it came in was the least of them. Every single time they only want a piece of paper which states they aren't responsible for whatever happens wrong. They don't care how much they pay for that piece of paper as long as they can shift the blame elsewhere.
The Eclipse Public License is not that different from GPLv3 and I never saw that much dissension about it. It's one of the most forked or 3rd party supported IDEs in the market.
I never quite saw it in that way. It was just that their society could not see things working any other way. For them those kinds of regimes were as foreign as an Athenian democracy or Roman republic would be to a Middle Ages European Feudal state.
It's probably the usual. Someone gets numbers from a UK website and doesn't bother converting units or considering that the drive tests done in Europe and USA are different.
The purpose of a trademark is to serve just like a name. It's to uniquely identify a manufacturers so the consumer knows what they are purchasing comes from that manufacturer. That's why trademarks don't expire and you can't have different manufacturers with the same or a similar and confusing trademark.
Trademarks usually apply to a given spectrum of products. I would guess what happened to Apple Inc here is the same thing that happened against Apple Records. Originally there was no clash because the segments were different (computers vs music) but now that there is an overlap there's an issue.
I would guess the guy has a trademark for using apple logos on watches or something like that.
Actually the Industrial Revolution was preceded by the enclosure movement where land was privatized. As a result a lot of people who used to till public or collective lands became landless overnight. These were ready hands available to work in the newly created (private) factories of the Industrial Revolution. But yes let's just rewrite history.
This only comes as a surprise to people who don't know Nintendo. They are one of the most lawsuit happy companies in the gaming market. In the 1980s they sued game developers who made their own game cartridges for the NES without paying for Nintendo for their "IP" to manufacture the cartridge. A lot of the time Nintendo even stalled these guys on purposes so they couldn't publish their games only to come with something quite similar of their own shortly after that. They were laughed out of court and the NES cartridge cloning business began. Today that we have stupid laws like the DMCA even that might happen today.
As for games they at one time sued Rainbow Arts for doing the Great Giana Sisters game claiming that it was too similar to the Mario games. Imagine making a game and calling it Mario. Good luck.
Well they can also do three Falcon 9 launches with the same amount of cores for a single Heavy which I expect gives them a lot more profit for roughly the same amount of manufacturing work.
It also helps clear their launch backlog and build a customer base. So it is not unreasonable that spend the first one or two years just doing Falcon 9 launches.
The article explains it fairly well. The SLS organization is a disaster. Not that this is unexpected.
NASA’s Office of Inspector General warned that Ground Systems Development and Operations, or GSDO, may be hard-pressed to have Kennedy Space Center's launch facilities ready on time.... "GSDO cannot finalize and complete its requirements without substantial input for the other two programs," said Jim Morrison, the assistant inspector general for audits. "And NASA is still finalizing the requirements for those programs."
In other words the pad work is delayed because they haven't finished the rocket design yet. And this is like 3 years before the launch.
Historically, said the OIG, NASA has taken a more centralized approach to the management of its in-house launch programs, synchronizing development activities through a single contractor. This is not the case for SLS, Orion and GSDO—each program is managed independently, with an emphasis placed on cross-program coordination. The OIG believes this approach is inefficient and could lead to scheduling delays.
I suggest NASA reads this paper: Bayer, Martin. "Hermes- Lessons learnt." IAF, International Astronautical Congress, 45 th, Jerusalem, Israel. 1994.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple assembles things in China. The actual chip manufacturing is done in Taiwan and the USA.
They don't have the machine tools, they don't have the knowledge to do advanced chip design, they can't do it. Period.
Sure they might do it with a monster project in like a decade, but by then the industry will have moved beyond the current point.
They can but it will be a lot more expensive and you can bet getting the tens or hundreds of thousands of chips they need for a supercomputer WILL be noticeable.
That plant cannot use the latest manufacturing process. It is used to manufacture chipsets and crap like that.
It's harder than you think it is.
Both US designed as well. I know there are open cores but they aren't the high end chips.
It's not just that. The Chinese have been working on miniaturization of their nuclear warheads so can they make them road mobile and submarine launched. They also are working on stealth aircraft, advanced radar, and the like. So you can bet they could use the processing power.
It's not like China doesn't have FABs and engineers that could make a similar CPU. What Intel fears the most is this will kickstart some national pride that's going to end with gov't funded R&D to make high end CPUs and GPUs.
You are wrong. The Chinese do not have the FABs. In fact no one else but Intel has FABs at that node. Everyone else is like 2 years behind and the Chinese FABs are like 6 years behind. There are export restrictions on advanced lithography equipment and the only litho manufacturers are in the US, Europe and Japan. Namely Ultratech, ASML, Canon and Nikon.
Their chip design is over a decade behind the west. Just look at Longsoon or the licensed ARM processors companies like Mediatek manufacture.
I'm surprised the FTC allowed it in the first place.
They're morons then. The license of a compiler has nothing to do with the license of the generated code. Just to prevent this particular stupidity Stallman even added a specific GCC exemption at one point but this is widely understood to be implicit by common law anyway.
I've seen stupidity in corporations regarding open source or free software several times and the license it came in was the least of them. Every single time they only want a piece of paper which states they aren't responsible for whatever happens wrong. They don't care how much they pay for that piece of paper as long as they can shift the blame elsewhere.
The Eclipse Public License is not that different from GPLv3 and I never saw that much dissension about it. It's one of the most forked or 3rd party supported IDEs in the market.
B5 wasn't that depressing. There was the Shadow War but the whole thing is kind of like WW2 redux.
The rich, most of them at least, don't have enough far-sightedness to think of things that way. To them it will be someone else's problem.
Ask the wealthy Romans how much their wealth saved them when Alaric came.
I never quite saw it in that way. It was just that their society could not see things working any other way. For them those kinds of regimes were as foreign as an Athenian democracy or Roman republic would be to a Middle Ages European Feudal state.
It's probably the usual. Someone gets numbers from a UK website and doesn't bother converting units or considering that the drive tests done in Europe and USA are different.
The purpose of a trademark is to serve just like a name. It's to uniquely identify a manufacturers so the consumer knows what they are purchasing comes from that manufacturer. That's why trademarks don't expire and you can't have different manufacturers with the same or a similar and confusing trademark.
Trademarks usually apply to a given spectrum of products. I would guess what happened to Apple Inc here is the same thing that happened against Apple Records. Originally there was no clash because the segments were different (computers vs music) but now that there is an overlap there's an issue.
I would guess the guy has a trademark for using apple logos on watches or something like that.
Actually the Industrial Revolution was preceded by the enclosure movement where land was privatized. As a result a lot of people who used to till public or collective lands became landless overnight. These were ready hands available to work in the newly created (private) factories of the Industrial Revolution. But yes let's just rewrite history.
Which disproves what I said that Nintendo are a bunch of lawsuit prone anti-competitive pricks in which way?
There were companies other than Tengen doing clone cartridges. Some of which did clean room reverse engineering.
Also Nintendo lost an anti-trust lawsuit against Atari and Sega in the late 1980s. Guess why.
The probably didn't notice it exists. Better hope they continue not noticing it.
This only comes as a surprise to people who don't know Nintendo. They are one of the most lawsuit happy companies in the gaming market. In the 1980s they sued game developers who made their own game cartridges for the NES without paying for Nintendo for their "IP" to manufacture the cartridge. A lot of the time Nintendo even stalled these guys on purposes so they couldn't publish their games only to come with something quite similar of their own shortly after that. They were laughed out of court and the NES cartridge cloning business began. Today that we have stupid laws like the DMCA even that might happen today.
As for games they at one time sued Rainbow Arts for doing the Great Giana Sisters game claiming that it was too similar to the Mario games. Imagine making a game and calling it Mario. Good luck.
Yeah if they can get it to work it will be a tremendous improvement.
Well they can also do three Falcon 9 launches with the same amount of cores for a single Heavy which I expect gives them a lot more profit for roughly the same amount of manufacturing work.
It also helps clear their launch backlog and build a customer base. So it is not unreasonable that spend the first one or two years just doing Falcon 9 launches.
The article explains it fairly well. The SLS organization is a disaster. Not that this is unexpected.
NASA’s Office of Inspector General warned that Ground Systems Development and Operations, or GSDO, may be hard-pressed to have Kennedy Space Center's launch facilities ready on time. ...
"GSDO cannot finalize and complete its requirements without substantial input for the other two programs," said Jim Morrison, the assistant inspector general for audits. "And NASA is still finalizing the requirements for those programs."
In other words the pad work is delayed because they haven't finished the rocket design yet. And this is like 3 years before the launch.
Historically, said the OIG, NASA has taken a more centralized approach to the management of its in-house launch programs, synchronizing development activities through a single contractor. This is not the case for SLS, Orion and GSDO—each program is managed independently, with an emphasis placed on cross-program coordination. The OIG believes this approach is inefficient and could lead to scheduling delays.
I suggest NASA reads this paper:
Bayer, Martin. "Hermes- Lessons learnt." IAF, International Astronautical Congress, 45 th, Jerusalem, Israel. 1994.
Potemkin rocket launch delayed!