Shameful CPU Pricing

[chrisv]

Chairman Mao proposed a similar theory as you're expressing here.
Chairman Mao believed that essentially 95% of the people were
"good", meaning inherently altruistic, and 5% of the people were
inherently "bad", meaning greedy and thus incompatible with the
ideals of communism. Chairman Mao believed that you just had to
kill the 5% of the "bad" people, and the rest of the "good" people
can form an ideal communist system.

Of course, HE lived high on the hog, with his harem, etc. A common
hypocrite and despot.

 

[chrisv]

I don't believe in international socialism. To me, it's a complete
fraud. Socialism on a national level, however, is ideal. (e.g. what's
developing in China)

Idiot. What's "developing" in China is capitalism, and it's that
"greed" being satisfied that is driving their economy.

 

[aether]

Both have argued their points well.

 

[Robert Myers]

If you back to Stalin's time, I think they do. You do recall what
happened in Ukraine, right? Some little disagreement with the Kulaks.

And then there was the real gulag, you have read Solzhenitsyn, right?

And the Cultural Revolution, and .....

According to Robert McNamara's _Fog_of_War_, conflict in the Twentieth
Century killed 160 million humans. The US killed 100,000 in one night
in the firebombing of Tokyo. Starvation in the Ukraine? A few
million. Cultural revolution? A few million more. Make it 10 million
generously for Joe and 20 million for the cultural revolution. You
still have a long way to go to dominate the totals.

RM

 

[aether]

The Soviet Union and China are responsible for at least 75 million
deaths. The number of people killed under Communist governments dwarfs
that of Fascism.

 

[Del Cecchi]

According to Robert McNamara's _Fog_of_War_, conflict in the Twentieth
Century killed 160 million humans. The US killed 100,000 in one night
in the firebombing of Tokyo. Starvation in the Ukraine? A few
million. Cultural revolution? A few million more. Make it 10 million
generously for Joe and 20 million for the cultural revolution. You
still have a long way to go to dominate the totals.

RM

Lumping in genocide and killing of one's own citizens for political
purposes with war casualties is playing pretty fast and loose with facts.
I would have expected better of you. Especially bringing in WW2, which
most people believe the Germans and Japanese started, is pretty far off.

And Robert McNamara seems to be pretty far off the rails these days.

You are eroding my opinion of you as a critical thinker.

del

 

[Robert Myers]

Lumping in genocide and killing of one's own citizens for political
purposes with war casualties is playing pretty fast and loose with facts.

Or just pursuing the line of argument that I set up and that you
disputed:

RM> Mass killings by every conceivable means: bombing, executions,
warfare,
RM> terrorism, deliberate starvation, extermination camps, hacking
people
RM> to death with machetes, whatever, seem to have taken place more or
less
RM> constantly since, say, the beginning of the Twentieth Century.

I included warfare in my proposition. You can change the proposed
terms of the discussion, if you wish, and apparently you do wish, but
you are changing the proposed terms of the discussion.

I would have expected better of you. Especially bringing in WW2, which
most people believe the Germans and Japanese started, is pretty far off.

What most people, especially Americans, believe about World War II
carries weight in an argument where my skills as a critical thinker are
to be called into question? I really thought I had left "Who started
it" arguments behind with my childhood.

The U.S. took the concept of "Total war" to a whole new level in World
War II. Curtis LeMay himself said he probably would have been tried as
a war criminal if the U.S. had lost the war. "Strategic" bombing of
cities, most memorably Dresden and Tokyo, accomplished little in terms
of achieving actual war aims.

People like to think of World War II as a "good war." Maybe it was. I
don't know what I would have done in the place of any decision-maker
facing down what must have seemed like Armageddon. I might well have
done exactly the same things. Moral judgement is not the point. The
pervasiveness of the mass slaughter of human beings as something that
is not peculiar to totalitarian Communism was my point.

And Robert McNamara seems to be pretty far off the rails these days.

Robert McNamara is a grotesque. He wrings his hands over the horrors
of war and *still* hasn't expressed regret over his own contribution to
the horrors of the Twentieth Century. That doesn't mean his numbers
are wrong.

You are eroding my opinion of you as a critical thinker.

My only fear in this discussion is that my views will be stereotyped.

RM

 

[aether]

Socialism on a national scale, with emphasis on national identity,
culture, and tradition, is the best route a people can take. This
chaotic, unbridaled, international capitalism we see today benefits few
people. What's taking place is not inevitable. Don't misunderstand me.
Modern technology will continue to make this planet connected, but
that's a separate issue, entirely, from what's taking place. As much as
possible, every nation should aspire to be self-sufficient; trading
what they have in exchange for what they lack. Death to international
finance.

 

[chrisv]

Socialism on a national scale, with emphasis on national identity,
culture, and tradition, is the best route a people can take. This
chaotic, unbridaled, international capitalism we see today benefits few
people. What's taking place is not inevitable. Don't misunderstand me.
Modern technology will continue to make this planet connected, but
that's a separate issue, entirely, from what's taking place. As much as
possible, every nation should aspire to be self-sufficient; trading
what they have in exchange for what they lack. Death to international
finance.

Ignore the wacko.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Socialism on a national scale, with emphasis on national identity,
culture, and tradition, is the best route a people can take.

Really? Many of the worst regimes of the 20thC went exactly this
route. A common thread seems to have been a lack of individual
rights, and a sacrificing of self for some "greater good".

This chaotic, unbridaled, international capitalism we
see today benefits few people.

This is not true--understand the "Invisible Hand".

-- Robert

 

[Neil Maxwell]

Socialism on a national scale, with emphasis on national identity,
culture, and tradition, is the best route a people can take.

It's quite good of you to figure out what's best for everyone. I'm
sure everyone appreciates it - especially going the extra mile to
figure out who needs to be murdered to bring about your utopian
vision.

This
chaotic, unbridaled, international capitalism we see today benefits few
people. What's taking place is not inevitable. Don't misunderstand me.

You must be young indeed. I don't suppose you remember when a PC with
2 floppies, no hard drive, 64k RAM, and a green monitor cost $5000
(that was in 1980s dollars, too).

We're in a golden age of technology right now, and chaotic, unbridled,
international capitalism is the engine driving it. You may be unhappy
that other people choose to buy DVD players for their cars instead of
green PCs for the poor, but maybe you don't know what people want as
well as you think you do. Better kill them too.

Modern technology will continue to make this planet connected, but
that's a separate issue, entirely, from what's taking place. As much as
possible, every nation should aspire to be self-sufficient; trading
what they have in exchange for what they lack. Death to international
finance.

I don't suppose you work for a living, do you?

 

[Felger Carbon]

Death to international finance.

In your initial posting, you wanted cheaper CPUs. A few years ago, a
new CPU fab could be built for a mere $2B (that's billion). Nowadays,
the fabs are more expensive. AMD has a couple, Intel has many. The
investment in CPU fabs internationally totals between $10B and $20B
and that's still B as in billion.

As an alternative to international finance, were you going to chip in
with a few of your buddies to build at least one such fab to build
cheap CPUs?

After you and your buddies have spent well north of $2B for a CPU fab,
how can you sell the CPUs cheaply and still pay the workers and pay
for the silicon wafers and still have enough money left over to build
the next fab as Moore's Law advances?

I you can really make this work, I'll be first in line to applaud your
efforts and buy your cheap CPUs. When are you and your buddies going
to break ground on your new fab? How much do you plan to sell each
CPU for?

 

[Del Cecchi]

In your initial posting, you wanted cheaper CPUs. A few years ago, a
new CPU fab could be built for a mere $2B (that's billion). Nowadays,
the fabs are more expensive. AMD has a couple, Intel has many. The
investment in CPU fabs internationally totals between $10B and $20B
and that's still B as in billion.

As an alternative to international finance, were you going to chip in
with a few of your buddies to build at least one such fab to build
cheap CPUs?

After you and your buddies have spent well north of $2B for a CPU fab,
how can you sell the CPUs cheaply and still pay the workers and pay
for the silicon wafers and still have enough money left over to build
the next fab as Moore's Law advances?

I you can really make this work, I'll be first in line to applaud your
efforts and buy your cheap CPUs. When are you and your buddies going
to break ground on your new fab? How much do you plan to sell each
CPU for?

Hey, he can pick up a nice 180 nm fab for way less than a billion. And
build perfectly servicable, cheap processors.

 

[Robert Myers]

Hey, he can pick up a nice 180 nm fab for way less than a billion. And
build perfectly servicable, cheap processors.

How does that work out? You only get to put a quarter the processors
on a die that you could with a 90nm fab. The capital cost per unit is
lower, but the operating cost per unit is higher.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

Socialism on a national scale, with emphasis on national identity,
culture, and tradition, is the best route a people can take.

Uhh, it's been tried - success examples please!

This
chaotic, unbridaled, international capitalism we see today benefits few
people. What's taking place is not inevitable.

How about chaotic, unbridled socialism? Oh, ya mean the guys at the top
are presumed to be supreme, unambitious altruists. Umm, where are those
people?... show me one?

 

[Del Cecchi]

How does that work out? You only get to put a quarter the processors
on a die that you could with a 90nm fab. The capital cost per unit is
lower, but the operating cost per unit is higher.

RM

At the moment I can put one processor on a die in 180 just like most of
the 90 nm processors. And I'm not paying the depreciation/ROI on what, 4
Billion? Processing wafers is pretty cheap if the fab is already written
down to zero. That's how they can put chips in greeting cards, stuffed
animals, and 90 cent calculators. And the wafers are even cheaper if one
is in a low wage area with less regulation of discharges. And with
cheap electricity.

 

[Robert Myers]

At the moment I can put one processor on a die in 180 just like most of
the 90 nm processors. And I'm not paying the depreciation/ROI on what, 4
Billion? Processing wafers is pretty cheap if the fab is already written
down to zero. That's how they can put chips in greeting cards, stuffed
animals, and 90 cent calculators. And the wafers are even cheaper if one
is in a low wage area with less regulation of discharges. And with
cheap electricity.

Oh, I phrased the question incorrectly. I meant that you can put four
times the number of chips on the same size wafer. If the throughput of
wafers is constant, the throughput of chips is four times as high at 90
nm.

But, if I read your answer correctly, the throughput would matter
mostly because of the capital cost of the factory.

As to *really* inexpensive chips, I assume that they are much less
complicated and demanding and that the yield constraints are very much
relaxed, so I don't know how much the making of such chips says about
the making of a processor that would be competitive for a CPU.

RM

 

[Del Cecchi]

Oh, I phrased the question incorrectly. I meant that you can put four
times the number of chips on the same size wafer. If the throughput of
wafers is constant, the throughput of chips is four times as high at 90
nm.

But, if I read your answer correctly, the throughput would matter
mostly because of the capital cost of the factory.

As to *really* inexpensive chips, I assume that they are much less
complicated and demanding and that the yield constraints are very much
relaxed, so I don't know how much the making of such chips says about
the making of a processor that would be competitive for a CPU.

RM

You can't build a processor that would be competitive for a cpu with a
fab 2 generations outdated. But you can make one like you had 5 years
ago really really cheap. Competitive or Cheap, pick one.

del

 

[aether]

Uhh, it's been tried - success examples please!

National Socialist Germany 1933-1945 is an example. If war had been
avoided, it would've been a model for the world. Jewish, British, and
American warmongers brought about it's demise. They conspired, from day
one, to destroy it. Not surprising, seeing as the British have been the
Jews' (spec. the Rothschilds) bitches for the past 200 years.

How about chaotic, unbridled socialism? Oh, ya mean the guys at the top
are presumed to be supreme, unambitious altruists. Umm, where are those
people?... show me one?

Regards to your capitalistic cesspool (America, Britain) which are in
the process of dying. The decay is evident everywhere. No identity, no
traditions, no culture. You're a means of enriching shareholders. A
modern slave.

 

[Felger Carbon]

National Socialist Germany 1933-1945 is an example. If war had been
avoided, it would've been a model for the world.

Yeh, that little world war did mess things up a tad.

Say, when are you and your buddies going to break ground on your new
CPU fab? You know, the one you're building without international
finance? I hope you get moving on that soon because I need a new
CPU, and neither Intel, AMD, nor IBM will sell me one cheap. I admire
your willingness to take on difficult projects rather than just sit
back and complain, like so many lesser individuals.