While traveling through NM this summer at night, I made a point to stop in the middle of nowhere and turn off all of my lights. The view was amazing and you could clearly and easily see the Milky Way. It was actually kind of spooky with how pitch black it was out in the middle of nowhere. The mind starts playing tricks on you quite quickly...:)
Actually, this article has more details on the response, or lack of one. This is still a "known" event and the cable provides another second hand account of what allegedly happened.
The cable provides a new second hand account of what allegedly happened. It appears that this was already a "known" event, although maybe not reported to the public or covered in enough detail Valid example of a potential murder, though... I'll give you that.
I guess I'm still waiting / looking for the "big secret coverup" cable to be found that details some atrocity that was never known about by anyone but those privy to this "secret" cable network... Something that would really justify a whistleblowing campaign rather than a data dump.
On the other hand, the cables contain information about people who have been murdered. These crimes would not be known, nor their murderers known, were it not for the release of the cables.
There's no proof for anything in that cable. It's essentially a copy-and-paste of a request received at the Embassy.
I'm not making excuses for anyone. If the accounts are true, then someone should have faced court-martial and given the death penalty if found guilty (my opinion). The evidence isn't in that cable, though, imo.
That "cable" is documenting a letter received by the Embassy asking if the account of the scenario is true. The letter is asking, "hey, I heard this happened. Can you confirm or deny?" There is no documentation as to what the response was, either from the military or the embassy.
I have no idea what happened, but rather than this being proof in the cables of assassinations, it's simply someone documenting a request received at the Embassy.
The US government which kept the names in plaintext in a database with millions of people having access
All this is going to lead to is the State Dept, DoD and other agencies going back to stovepiped info systems, since having a shared common operation like this is obviously flawed.
I don't know that "millions" have access to the secure networks where these cables were originally transmitted, either. It was "plaintext" but on a secure network where the user was the vulnerability.
Don't worry... Scientists will just make up "dark" something that can be plugged into equations but never detected in order to explain this. Let's start with "dark lithium". If they use that I want royalties!
Is there really any scarcity? I can go buy i7 processors from $300 to $1,000 USD at Newegg right now. Only one looks like it's out of stock.
Are you okay with product differentiation as a result of natural manufacturing defects? The market clearly shows there's a demand for a range of low, mid and high-functionality processors. Why does it matter if this differentiation is a result of natural or artificial means so long as market demand at each level is satisfied?
Sure, more competition and lower prices overall would be nice, but that's a separate issue, imo. The differentiation allows Intel to recoup R&D, marketing, IP and overall business costs across a range of products and provide more choices to the consumer.
I think it'd be hard to pin an exact percentage of R&D costs on each individual vehicle or processor made. The $20k car contributes less profit per sale but more volume while the $50k car produces more profit at a lower volume. There's a market for both levels. I don't see why price-fixing and collusion HAVE to be involved, although they certainly can.
I don't disagree with that, but who determines what the right amount of profit is? Obviously there's a market for tri and quad-core processors at the current prices.
The manufacturing process creates a processor that's worth $400 on the market. Lower end "broken" or "crippled" versions are worth $200 on the market. It's up to the manufacturer to produce chips in a way that results in the lowest production cost overall yet satisfies both markets.
Assume it costs $10,000 to make 100 processors and there's a 90% yield due to naturally occurring failures. You can sell the chips for $300 given the current market.
90% yield means 90 $100 processors sold for $300 = $18,000 profit
90% yield of "junk" processors means 9 $100 processors sold for $200 = $900 profit from "junk" chips
Total profit = $18,900 (potentially)
Now, you realize you're not selling all of your $300 processors (consumers want the $200 model more). 30% of high-end chips (assume) are sitting on the shelf, so $5,400 of profit is not realized and consumer demand for $200 chips is not met.
Total actual profit = $13,500
You have five options.
1) Sell everything at $200 and accept that this is "enough" profit. This is the solution you want.
99 $100 processors at $200 each = $9,900 profit
Or maybe sell all 90 "good" chips at a discount of $250 = $13,500 profit You assume that consumers won't go elsewhere for a $200 processor and you can sell everything manufactured at this price point, though.
2) Only produce $200 chips since that's where the demand is at and assume it costs less to produce those chips, but still a 90% yield. Or maybe this is the option you want?
90 $75 processors at $200 each = $11,250 profit
3) Discount the $300 model to $250 to sell more of them. Assume only 4-5% sits on the shelf now.
86 $100 processors sold for $250 = $12,900 9 $100 processors sold for $200 = $900
Total profit $13,800
4) Product two separate chips with two separate manufacturing processes. I assume this will drive up manufacturing costs for each version.
$6,000 to make 50 "high-end" models. $6,000 to make 50 "low-end" models.
90% yield, 45 $120 processors sold for $300 each = $8,100 profit 90% yield, 45 $120 processors sold for $200 each = $3,600 profit
Total profit = $11,700
5) Product same chip but "cripple" one version to be sold at lower price. Assume "crippling" adds some manufacturing cost.
$10,000 to make 100 "high-end" models, 90% yield = 90 "high-end" chips, 9 "low-end" chips (from natural yield)
45 $100 processors sold for $300 each = $9,000 9 $100 processors sold for $200 each = $900 45 $110 processors sold for $200 each = $4,050 (extra manufacturing cost is due to "crippling" them)
Total profit = $13,950
Now, obviously these number are made up. I honestly didn't tweak them to arrive at #5 having the most profit, so that's just a coincidence. Even with made up numbers, other options look almost as good. Since the industry has decided to go with #5 has a whole, though, obviously the numbers work out for them. In the end, the consumer is getting a level of functionality equal to the price they paid, regardless of what's inherently available within the chip. Also realize that the more profit at this level leads to the next generation of "low-end" chips that out-perform the "high-end" chips you're producing now.
Then you should only buy top of the line model cars and processors. Then you're not getting "screwed" out of anything. Leave the "crippled" stuff for the rest of us that are okay with spending less money for a level of functionality that suits us.
lol... and you really think that tri-core Phenom isn't just a quad-core with a non-functioning or disabled core? You pay tri-core prices for tri-core functionality. You're not getting screwed in either scenario here (well... with regards to enabled/disabled features).
I don't want the only processor option to be the $500 top of the line model. I'm willing to pay $100 or $200 for a processor with that level of functionality. If you want $500 functionality, buy the $500 product. The manufacturing process facilitates the design of a single chip that's latter modified to create a performance level matching its price.
So long as you were only charged for 3 gig in the beginning, what's the problem here? You got what you paid for, which is exactly the case with these processors.
The issue here is the manufacturers are starting to realize just how much overhead they're spending making so many different models of products, and that it's cheaper to just manufacture one model, the best one, and then cripple it if you don't want to pay for the best.
What's the issue here? You think everyone should be forced to buy the top-end model because that's the only one manufacturers should make available? If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality. Just cause there's $50,000 functionality built into the car to make manufacturing cheaper, doesn't mean it should be given to you for free.
You get EXACTLY what you pay for when buying a processor. You get $200 functionality for a $200 processor. Just because a $400 functionality processor came out of the chute, you expect them to give it to you for $200? Or maybe you'd be happier if only $400 models were available? Or if the company was required to actually produce completely separate dies for each version, thus making your $200 model more expensive?
Slashdot Mirror
What point of the video are you talking about? Hell.. what video? Just to make sure we're seeing the same thing...
How does that "detract from usability"? That animation doesn't "inform the user" that the screen is changing?
I don't care, for one. 100% streaming, mostly for the kids and their shows. Ditch the DVD service so it doesn't affect streaming.
While traveling through NM this summer at night, I made a point to stop in the middle of nowhere and turn off all of my lights. The view was amazing and you could clearly and easily see the Milky Way. It was actually kind of spooky with how pitch black it was out in the middle of nowhere. The mind starts playing tricks on you quite quickly... :)
Actually, this article has more details on the response, or lack of one. This is still a "known" event and the cable provides another second hand account of what allegedly happened.
The cable provides a new second hand account of what allegedly happened. It appears that this was already a "known" event, although maybe not reported to the public or covered in enough detail Valid example of a potential murder, though... I'll give you that.
I guess I'm still waiting / looking for the "big secret coverup" cable to be found that details some atrocity that was never known about by anyone but those privy to this "secret" cable network... Something that would really justify a whistleblowing campaign rather than a data dump.
Which cables show that? Please provide links.
There's no proof for anything in that cable. It's essentially a copy-and-paste of a request received at the Embassy.
I'm not making excuses for anyone. If the accounts are true, then someone should have faced court-martial and given the death penalty if found guilty (my opinion). The evidence isn't in that cable, though, imo.
That "cable" is documenting a letter received by the Embassy asking if the account of the scenario is true. The letter is asking, "hey, I heard this happened. Can you confirm or deny?" There is no documentation as to what the response was, either from the military or the embassy.
I have no idea what happened, but rather than this being proof in the cables of assassinations, it's simply someone documenting a request received at the Embassy.
All this is going to lead to is the State Dept, DoD and other agencies going back to stovepiped info systems, since having a shared common operation like this is obviously flawed.
I don't know that "millions" have access to the secure networks where these cables were originally transmitted, either. It was "plaintext" but on a secure network where the user was the vulnerability.
Don't worry... Scientists will just make up "dark" something that can be plugged into equations but never detected in order to explain this. Let's start with "dark lithium". If they use that I want royalties!
John
Is there really any scarcity? I can go buy i7 processors from $300 to $1,000 USD at Newegg right now. Only one looks like it's out of stock.
Are you okay with product differentiation as a result of natural manufacturing defects? The market clearly shows there's a demand for a range of low, mid and high-functionality processors. Why does it matter if this differentiation is a result of natural or artificial means so long as market demand at each level is satisfied?
Sure, more competition and lower prices overall would be nice, but that's a separate issue, imo. The differentiation allows Intel to recoup R&D, marketing, IP and overall business costs across a range of products and provide more choices to the consumer.
How do you define the cost of development ($20,000-X) and who defines "reasonable"? R&D isn't tied to specific models and years of cars or processors.
I think it'd be hard to pin an exact percentage of R&D costs on each individual vehicle or processor made. The $20k car contributes less profit per sale but more volume while the $50k car produces more profit at a lower volume. There's a market for both levels. I don't see why price-fixing and collusion HAVE to be involved, although they certainly can.
I don't disagree with that, but who determines what the right amount of profit is? Obviously there's a market for tri and quad-core processors at the current prices.
The manufacturing process creates a processor that's worth $400 on the market. Lower end "broken" or "crippled" versions are worth $200 on the market. It's up to the manufacturer to produce chips in a way that results in the lowest production cost overall yet satisfies both markets.
Assume it costs $10,000 to make 100 processors and there's a 90% yield due to naturally occurring failures. You can sell the chips for $300 given the current market.
90% yield means 90 $100 processors sold for $300 = $18,000 profit
90% yield of "junk" processors means 9 $100 processors sold for $200 = $900 profit from "junk" chips
Total profit = $18,900 (potentially)
Now, you realize you're not selling all of your $300 processors (consumers want the $200 model more). 30% of high-end chips (assume) are sitting on the shelf, so $5,400 of profit is not realized and consumer demand for $200 chips is not met.
Total actual profit = $13,500
You have five options.
1) Sell everything at $200 and accept that this is "enough" profit. This is the solution you want.
99 $100 processors at $200 each = $9,900 profit
Or maybe sell all 90 "good" chips at a discount of $250 = $13,500 profit
You assume that consumers won't go elsewhere for a $200 processor and you can sell everything manufactured at this price point, though.
2) Only produce $200 chips since that's where the demand is at and assume it costs less to produce those chips, but still a 90% yield. Or maybe this is the option you want?
90 $75 processors at $200 each = $11,250 profit
3) Discount the $300 model to $250 to sell more of them. Assume only 4-5% sits on the shelf now.
86 $100 processors sold for $250 = $12,900
9 $100 processors sold for $200 = $900
Total profit $13,800
4) Product two separate chips with two separate manufacturing processes. I assume this will drive up manufacturing costs for each version.
$6,000 to make 50 "high-end" models.
$6,000 to make 50 "low-end" models.
90% yield, 45 $120 processors sold for $300 each = $8,100 profit
90% yield, 45 $120 processors sold for $200 each = $3,600 profit
Total profit = $11,700
5) Product same chip but "cripple" one version to be sold at lower price. Assume "crippling" adds some manufacturing cost.
$10,000 to make 100 "high-end" models, 90% yield = 90 "high-end" chips, 9 "low-end" chips (from natural yield)
45 $100 processors sold for $300 each = $9,000
9 $100 processors sold for $200 each = $900
45 $110 processors sold for $200 each = $4,050 (extra manufacturing cost is due to "crippling" them)
Total profit = $13,950
Now, obviously these number are made up. I honestly didn't tweak them to arrive at #5 having the most profit, so that's just a coincidence. Even with made up numbers, other options look almost as good. Since the industry has decided to go with #5 has a whole, though, obviously the numbers work out for them. In the end, the consumer is getting a level of functionality equal to the price they paid, regardless of what's inherently available within the chip. Also realize that the more profit at this level leads to the next generation of "low-end" chips that out-perform the "high-end" chips you're producing now.
Then you should only buy top of the line model cars and processors. Then you're not getting "screwed" out of anything. Leave the "crippled" stuff for the rest of us that are okay with spending less money for a level of functionality that suits us.
lol... and you really think that tri-core Phenom isn't just a quad-core with a non-functioning or disabled core? You pay tri-core prices for tri-core functionality. You're not getting screwed in either scenario here (well... with regards to enabled/disabled features).
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Phenom-X3-8750-TriCore-Processor/
I don't want the only processor option to be the $500 top of the line model. I'm willing to pay $100 or $200 for a processor with that level of functionality. If you want $500 functionality, buy the $500 product. The manufacturing process facilitates the design of a single chip that's latter modified to create a performance level matching its price.
Seeing as this if for i3 processors only, you're full of crap.
So long as you were only charged for 3 gig in the beginning, what's the problem here? You got what you paid for, which is exactly the case with these processors.
What's the issue here? You think everyone should be forced to buy the top-end model because that's the only one manufacturers should make available? If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality. Just cause there's $50,000 functionality built into the car to make manufacturing cheaper, doesn't mean it should be given to you for free.
You get EXACTLY what you pay for when buying a processor. You get $200 functionality for a $200 processor. Just because a $400 functionality processor came out of the chute, you expect them to give it to you for $200? Or maybe you'd be happier if only $400 models were available? Or if the company was required to actually produce completely separate dies for each version, thus making your $200 model more expensive?
What law did Congress make that limited your right to assemble in this situation?